Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Frimley and Farnborough District Water Bill.

Great Western Railway Bill.

Bills committed.

Durham Corporation Bill, Read a Second time, and committed.

St. Helens Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 9th March.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HOUSING.

Mr. McGOVERN: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses built by the Glasgow Corporation in the Shettleston Parliamentary area during each year since 1st January, 1919; the number being constructed at present; and how many of these are of slum clearance, intermediate and ordinary types?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I am sending the hon. Member a statement which gives the information asked for.

Mr. McGOVERN: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the areas that
have built houses and the number under the 1930 Slum Clearance Act and the amount of rent charged for two, three, and four apartments in each area?

Mr. SKELTON: I am sending the hon. Member a statement which gives the information asked for.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE PANEL COMMITTEE.

Mr. McGOVERN: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the reason for allowing doctors who have no panel practice to serve on the National Health Insurance Committee of the borough of Glasgow; and are they required to pay subscriptions similar to the panel doctors?

Mr. SKELTON: The arrangements for the appointment of Panel Committees in Scotland are laid down in regulations, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. These regulations provide that only medical practitioners who are under agreement to treat insured persons shall be entitled to take part in the election of members of Panel Committees, that all the members shall be duly qualified medical practitioners, and that not less than two-thirds of the members shall be practitioners under agreement to treat insured persons. I have no reason to think that the provision whereby these committees may include a certain proportion of non-panel practitioners is other than a desirable one. The arrangement under which the administration expenses of the Panel Committee for the Burgh of Glasgow are defrayed by means of a system of voluntary subscriptions by practitioners is a private one made, I understand, by the practitioners themselves.

Mr. McGOVERN: Can the hon. Gentleman toll me whether it is a breach of the rules to allow medical men who have no panel practice to serve, or is it in conformity with the rules?

Mr. SKELTON: It is in conformity with the rules, with the qualification that the hon. Member will see in my answer.

TEST WORK, MONTROSE.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is yet in the position to make any statement regarding the position of the County Council of Angus and test work at Montrose?

Mr. SKELTON: I am informed that at a recent meeting the Montrose Joint Committee, who administer public assistance in the area, decided to recommend that the arrangement in operation at Montrose for setting able-bodied applicants for relief to work should be discontinued. The Department of Health for Scotland have asked the county clerk to arrange that the recommendation will be submitted to the Public Assistance Committee and the county council for consideration at the earliest opportunity. I understand that pending a decision by the county council the test work scheme has been suspended.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply.

LAND SETTLEMENT, AYRSHIRE.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can make any statement with regard to the experimental scheme of his Department for placing unemployed men on the land in Ayrshire?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The Department of Agriculture for Scotland had arranged with proprietors to make land for plots available at Galston, but the applicants for these plots declined to take them when the Department were ready to give entry. At Auchinleck, where, also, a number of men applied for plots, the Department have been unable to obtain suitable land. Inquiries are proceeding in other districts.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

OATS AND OATMEAL (IMPORTS).

Mr. JAMES STUART: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has completed his investigation into the question of imported oats, oatmeal and oatmeal products; and, if so, whether he is in a position to make a statement as to the action he proposes to recommend in order to assist the home grower?

Sir G. COLLINS: The question of imported oats, oatmeal and other oat products is still under my consideration, and as it affects the United Kingdom its a whole, I am in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries
as to the steps, if any, that can be taken to assist the home grower.

Mr. STUART: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week oats were being sold in the North of Scotland at a lower price than has ruled for over a century, and does he realise the urgency of the matter? Will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of prohibiting the importation of foreign oats?

Sir G. COLLINS: I realise the serious position in the North of Scotland, and I cannot at present say anything except that I appreciate the gravity of the situation.

Mr. BOOTHBY: When will my right hon. Friend be in a position to make an announcement on the question?

Sir G. COLLINS: I would rather not commit myself as to time.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: Does the word "shortly" with regard to oats mean the same as it did with regard to credits schemes for farmers, which have taken months?

Sir G. COLLINS: As my hon. Friend knows, that matter is not under the jurisdiction of my office.

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if, having in view the low price obtainable for oats grown in this country at the present time, he will take the opportunity of the discussions which are taking place with the Argentine Government to secure a reduction of the quantity of oats imported from that country?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I cannot undertake to discuss details of the negotiations while they are in progress, but I can assure my hon. Friend that no relevant considerations are being overlooked.

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's opinion that the question of oats is a relevant consideration.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the serious position of the oat producers of this country, he will take steps to prohibit or limit the importation of foreign oats or oat products?

Mr. BOOTHBY: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the fact that the average wholesale price of oats in Germany during 1932 was nearly double the wholesale price of oats consigned from Germany and marketed in this country, he will take immediate steps to prohibit or control the importation of oats into this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no power to prohibit or control the importation of oats into this country. As regards the question of my hon. Friend, the Member for Aberdeen, East (Mr. Boothby), he was informed in answer to a question on 22nd February, that the oats imported in 1932, shown as consigned from Germany, were not of German origin.

Mr. SMITH: As the right hon. Gentleman has no power to prohibit foreign oats, will he take steps to obtain such power from this House?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My colleague the Minister for Agriculture is more concerned in this than the Board of Trade.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what difference it makes to the Scottish farmer whether oats sold at this price in this market were of German origin or not? They broke the market, and why should it make any difference whether they were of German origin or not?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I was asked whether oats were consigned from Germany or not, and I have given the answer.

Mr. BOOTHBY: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the German Government assists the export of oat products and sowing oats to this country, he will take immediate steps to prohibit or control their importation?

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that certain exported German oat products obtain the benefit of Government assistance, he will take steps to prohibit their import into this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As has been explained in reply to previous questions on this subject, under the German export bond system the exporter of oat products is given a certificate which entitles him to import an equivalent
quantity of oats duty free. The certificate has no value unless imports take place, and the German Government take the view that no subsidy on export is, therefore, involved. In any case I have no power to prohibit or control imports of the commodities in question.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I beg to give notice that, owing to the very unsatisfactory nature of the replies of the right hon. Gentleman, I will raise this matter on the adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

BANKRUPTCIES.

Mr. CONANT: 35.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of bankruptcies during each of the last five years among farmers occupying 50 acres or more, and those occupying less than 50 acres?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that the information desired is not available.

MEAT QUOTAS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 44.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will make available for Members the proposals that he has submitted to the Governments of all meat exporting countries for the regulation of all meat supplies required by this country?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the programme for the voluntary regulation of imports which is being undertaken in order to steady the meat market, and I would refer him to the reply which was given on the 9th February last to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) to which I have at present nothing to add. I am sending any hon. Friend, for his information, a copy of the notice issued to the Press on 25th January, which was referred to in that reply.

GOAL INDUSTRY.

PIT-HEAD BARHS.

Mr. PARKINSON: 9.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of mines in England and Wales that have pit-head baths; and what further action is being taken to increase the facilities for washing and cleaning at the pit heads?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): 98 mines in England
and Wales (besides 28 in Scotland) have pit-head baths in use, and bath installations are in course of erection under the Mining Industry Act, 1926, at 35 other mines in England and Wales and 10 in Scotland. These numbers exclude baths for mine officials only. According to present plans, from 30 to 35 additional mines will be provided with baths annually under the Mining Industry Act, 1926.

OVERTIME.

Mr. TINKER: 10.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will have an inquiry made into the overtime worked at coal mines, in view of the increase of this practice during recent years through the greater use of machinery, coal cutters and conveyors, and of the fact that employment for more men would be provided by the regulation of this practice?

Mr. E. BROWN: I am not quite clear what form of inquiry the hon. Member has in mind. All cases of overtime found by the Inspectors of Mines, or brought to their notice, are investigated, and if the overtime is found to be worked improperly the necessary steps are taken. If the hon. Member will give me particulars of any such cases I will see that they are inquired into.

Mr. TINKER: Is the Minister aware that last week he gave an answer to a question showing that in four mines in Nottinghamshire the average overtime worked was 3 per cent., and, if that is the average over the whole of the country, there are 24,000 more men who could be employed if the overtime was eliminated? It is on those lines that I want the hon. Gentleman to inquire.

Mr. E. BROWN: Averages are most misleading things to take. The overtime which is legitimate is emergency overtime. That is the only overtime that is permissible under the law, and if it were barred, so far from increasing employment, it might conceivably interfere with the regular employment of men on ordinary shifts.

Mr. TINKER: I have asked the Minister to make inquiries to see what ground there is for my assertions.

Mr. E. BROWN: If the hon. Member has any particular cases to bring to my notice, I shall be glad to have them
looked into. He will understand that there was a great deal of talk about this matter three years ago in Yorkshire, and there was an inquiry, and the result did not support the assertions that were made before the inquiry.

Mr. MAXTON: In the event of my bringing a specific case from Scotland, will the Minister prevent the men who report that case from being victimised by their employers?

Mr. E. BROWN: The hon. Member knows that if cases are found where overtime is being worked illegally—the conditions are laid down in rules made under the Act of 1908—then the inspectors of my Department take instant action.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: An answer from the Minister's Department on Tuesday showed that at one colliery in Nottinghamshire 1,400 hours overtime were worked in one month. Will he make inquiries into that?

Mr. E. BROWN: Certainly.

Mr. C. BROWN: Is the Minister aware that under the regulations men are down a colliery from seven in the morning to eight and nine o'clock at night regularly, and does he not think that there is need for review in such cases 7

Mr. E. BROWN: If that is so, I am surprised that the hon. Member has not called my attention to it.

Mr. BATEY: 15.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of hours overtime worked in or about the coal mines of the county of Durham for the month of January or the latest available month?

Mr. E. BROWN: I am afraid that records of the kind the hon. Member desires are not kept, as the time and expense involved would be out of all proportion to the usefulness of the information. If the hon. Member has any information as to alleged illegal working of overtime, and will give me particulars, I will have inquiries made?

Mr. BATEY: Is it not the case that last week a representative of the Minister stated the number of hours of overtime worked in particular cases?

Mr. E. BROWN: An answer of that kind can always be given in the case of a particular pit, but the hon. Member in this question is asking, not in respect
of a particular pit, but in respect of the whole county area, and my answer is accurate. The records are not such as would enable me to give him an answer in the form which he desires.

Mr. BATEY: But would it not be possible for the Minister to inquire into this matter?

Mr. E. BROWN: I have already done the utmost I can. I have offered to look into any case or cases which hon. Members care to bring up.

HOURS CONVENTION.

Mr. MARTIN: 11.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, as a result of the recent meeting at Geneva, he can make a statement of Government policy with regard to the Convention for the Limitation of Miners' Hours?

Mr. E. BROWN: The policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to this Convention has not undergone any change since it was announced in this House on 23rd February last year by my predecessor in office, in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of this answer. At the recent further meeting at Geneva of the representatives of the seven Governments principally concerned, I restated our policy in the same terms. In the course of the discussion which took place, I explained that upon examination of the details of the Convention we had found that it is quite impracticable, under the conditions obtaining in this country, to give effect to the provisions dealing with the hours of continuous shift workers, and with week-end work, as they stand and that the former of these difficulties, at least, would presumably arise in other countries also. I made it clear that Great Britain, while being favourably disposed to the Convention, and supporting the principle of simultaneous ratification, could only ratify it in a form which would enable its provisions to be observed in this country both in the letter and in the spirit. The meeting took note of the two points of practical difficulty, upon which they were unable to state an opinion; and considered that a further possible unofficial meeting of Government representatives could not usefully he contemplated until the International Labour Office had collected information
as regards the manner in which the two questions have in practice been settled in the countries concerned.

Mr. MARTIN: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether Great Britain is the only country which at the present time finds difficulty in ratifying the Convention? Has he seen in the German "Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung" a statement of the German attitude?

Mr. BROWN: No, we are not the only country. I have seen a report of the German declaration made at Geneva, as printed in the German newspaper, and it is in the following terms:
 It would be a source of satisfaction to the German Government if, by the simultaneous ratification of the Convention concerning the limitation of hours of work in coal mines, the gaps between the prime costs of the most important coal dealers could be narrowed even partly, and for its own part the Government would be prepared to collaborate to this end. But it can set no hopes on such a course of action so long as its results are liable at any time to be called into question by disturbances in the domain of currency and of international movements of capital and goods. It, therefore, considers that the question of ratification cannot profitably be discussed until these disturbances have been removed.

Mr. MARTIN: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is developing into a Debate.

WAGES.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 12.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the refusal of the Mining Association to consider along with the Miners' Federation of Great Britain any question of the wages position as it will arise at the end of the present arrangement between the Government and the Association in July of this year, he will state what action the Government intend to take in this matter?

Mr. E. BROWN: I am not prepared to assume, as the hon. Member apparently does, that wages difficulties will arise in the mining industry next July. Wages are regulated by district wage agreements, and I know of no case in which it is proposed to seek an alteration of the existing agreement in July. In these circumstances I do not understand in what direction and for what reason the hon. Member suggests that the Government should take action.

Mr. MACDONALD: Is it the intention of the Government to assist the Miners' Federation to bring about national negotiation with the Mining Association on wages?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member knows that that has been the policy of the Government from the beginning. He also knows that meetings have taken place on a national basis on other questions, and he will further realise that, apart from compulsory arbitration, it is not so easy to rebuild these things as it is to break them down.

Mr. MACDONALD: May we take it that the Government disapprove of the action of the coalowners in refusing to negotiate on wages nationally

Mr. BROWN: The answer to that question is that it is the Government policy to assist in every way a national agreement on the wages question in the mining industry.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that a letter was received in his Department on 9th February from the Miners' Federation intimating that the coalowners had point-blank refused to negotiate with the Federation on wages?

Mr. BROWN: I have already answered that question. I have pointed out that, apart from compulsory arbitration, it is difficult to see what other useful steps we can take.

Mr. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. A colleague of the Minister misled the House—I am certain quite innocently—on this day week, when he gave a reply indicating that no information was available with regard to the negotiations on wages having broken down. We are merely asking whether it is not the case that such information was at the Minister's disposal on that date.

HON. MEMBERS: Where is the point of Order?

Mr. SPEAKER: It does not seem to me that any point of Order arises.

LOW-TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION.

Mr. JOHN WALLACE: 14.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware of the proposals recently propounded for the development of low-temperature car-
bonisation in Scotland on a large scale with a central refinery at Rosyth or Port Edgar for treating the oils obtained; and whether he is taking steps to assist the scheme being carried out in the near future, and to ascertain the accuracy of the statistical data which have been published in this connection?

Mr. E. BROWN: The proposals to which my hon. Friend refers are, I believe, those which were outlined in a Debate in another place on 7th December last. While the commercial development of low temperature carbonisation is undoubtedly making some progress in this country I do not regard the particular scheme referred to as one which it would be practicable to carry out in the near future. I have had the data which has been published examined but there is not sufficient material available to me at present to enable me to say that it would be possible in practice to secure the results claimed.

Mr. WALLACE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Duke of Montrose is reported to have said that with a capital of £8,000,000, for a, low-temperature carbonisation scheme of this nature there would be an annual return of £2,000,000; and further is he aware that a return on capital of this nature is what poor Members of Parliament have been seeking anxiously for a long time?

Mr. BROWN: I cannot take any responsibility for the calculations made or for the statements made.

Mr. WALLACE: Can the hon. Gentleman give us some idea as to when his inquiries into the statistical data will be complete?

Mr. BROWN: The statistical information given in connection with this particular statement of the scheme is not sufficient to enable me to give an answer to my hon. Friend as to the value of the scheme propounded.

QUOTAS AND OUTPUT.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL (for Mr. GEORGE HALL): 13.
asked the Secretary for Mines the tonnage allocations and the actual output of coal for each district in this country, under the provisions of Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930; and the figures for each quarter for the years 1931 and 1932, respectively?

Mr. E. BROWN: As the answer includes a large number of figures, I am sending the hon. Member the information he requires. At the same time copies have been placed in the Library for the information of any other hon. Members who may be interested.

TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IMPERIAL PREFERENCE (COTTON GOODS).

Mr. RANKIN: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any special efforts and, if so, of what nature, are now being made to secure increased preference for cotton goods within the Empire?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I can assure the hon. Member that no chance of providing increased opportunities for the sale of cotton goods within the Empire will be neglected.

Mr. MAXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman doing anything to encourage the sale of steel sleepers in various parts of the Empire?

Mr. THOMAS: Yes, and the hon. Member will be pleased to know that the Great Western Railway and the London Midland and Scottish Railway have doubled—

Mr. SPEAKER: Mt. George Hall.

CANADA (IMPORT DUTIES).

Mr. MABANE: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether special import duties to compensate for exchange depreciation are levied by Canada now on imports from France or were so levied at any time since 1918?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: French currency is not depreciated in relation to the Canadian dollar and no question therefore arises of dumping duty to compensate for depreciation. I understand that no such duty has in fact been imposed at any time since 1918 on account of exchange fluctuation.

Mr. MABANE: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will inquire from the Dominion Government whether the removal of the special duties to compensate for exchange depreciation levied by Canada on imports from this country is to be conditioned by the
financial exigencies of Canada or by the fact that the exchange value of the pound sterling is no longer in fact depreciated?

Mr. THOMAS: The undertaking of His Majesty's Government in Canada as to the reduction and ultimate abolition of exchange dumping duty is set out in the second part of Article 17 of the agreement made with Canada at the Ottawa Conference; and there would not therefore appear to be any ground for the suggested inquiry.

Mr. MABANE: Do I understand that, although the pound sterling has achieved a new parity, and is stable at that parity, yet it will continue to be treated as depreciated currency and differently from other currencies that have altered their gold content but are similarly stable?

Mr. THOMAS: It is very interesting to know that the pound is now stable.

Mr. MABANE: May I ask for an answer to my question?

EXPORTS (CANADA).

Mr. HICKS: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the figures of increased exports to Canada since the grant of preferences arising out of the Ottawa Agreements?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The modifications of duties provided for in the United Kingdom-Canada Trade Agreement came into force in Canada on the 13th October last. The declared value of the domestic exports of merchandise registered as consigned from the United Kingdom to Canada during the three months ended 31st December, 1932, amounted to £4,398,000, as compared with £4,124,000 during the previous quarter, and £4,285,000 during the corresponding quarter of 1931.

Mr. HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard the increase in these figures as anything appreciable or satisfactory?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir, it is going in the right direction.

Mr. HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that inside of 10 years these figures will have appreciably increased?

IMPORT DUTIES (EMPIRE CONTENT).

Colonel GOODMAN: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what are
the percentages of Empire content now in operation in this country, and the main classes of imports which are affected?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Under the regulations at present in force, goods manufactured in and consigned from a part of the Empire, with the exception of sugar, tobacco, optical glass and optical elements, must contain a minimum of 25 per cent. of Empire material and labour in order to qualify for Imperial preference. In the case of optical glass and optical elements, the required proportion is 75 per cent., while sugar and tobacco are subject to special provisions. Regulations recently made, which come into force on the 1st April next, will require an Empire content of 50 per cent. in respect of the main classes of manufactured goods, with the exception of textiles, chemicals, leather and paper.

Colonel GOODMAN: Is this the right hon. Gentleman's idea of an approach to uniformity of standard?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is as near as you can get thereto.

FOREIGN TRADE (NEGOTIATIONS).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any progress has been made or any settlement arrived at in the negotiations for trade treaties between this country and the Governments of Denmark, Sweden, Holland and the Argentine?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Negotiations with Argentina, Denmark and Sweden are proceeding; no negotiations with Holland have been undertaken.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when they are likely to reach an agreement, and will he also tell us what results have been achieved up to date?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot name a definite date, but they are proceeding satisfactorily.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Has the right hon. Gentleman succeeded in obtaining a relaxation of the restrictions on exchange by the Argentine Government so that British exporters may receive payment for the goods they have sent to the Argentine?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is under discussion at the present moment.

Mr. REMER: 34.
asked the President of the Board of Trade with which foreign countries negotiations are proceeding which prevent recent recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee from being confirmed?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It has been deemed advisable to defer a decision on certain recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee in the present stage of the commercial negotiations and discussions with Denmark and Germany.

Mr. REMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of my question which asks what countries these are?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot go into that question at the moment.

Mr. REMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration that pottery is one of the articles referred to in this recommendation as very large users of coal in this country, and that it would be very valuable for our coal industry?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: We will not allow pottery to slip out of mind.

DENMARK.

Mr. HANNON: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that an understanding has been arrived at with the Danish Government at the Anglo-Danish Exhibition, 1932, that applications for export licences would be accepted on the basis of an exchange of 18.50 kronen to the pound sterling; but that following on this arrangement licences are being issued on the basis of 19.20 kronen to the pound sterling; and if he will invite the Danish Government to implement the undertaking which they have given?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not aware that the Danish Government have given any such undertaking as is described in the first part of the question. The remainder of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. HANNON: Oh, but surely the right hon. Gentleman has been made aware of the negotiations that took place at Copenhagen at the time of the Anglo-Danish Exhibition, and will he take into con-
sideration in the negotiations now proceeding the undertaking given by the Danish Government to the British manufacturers?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: But there was not an undertaking of the nature described in this question.

Mr. HANNON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the Anglo-Danish Exhibition specific promises were made to British manufacturers in relation to Danish trade, and are these promises in point of fact now being implemented by the Danes?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As far as we know, they are.

Mr. HANNON: 33.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that British firms were assured at the Anglo-Danish Exhibition, 1932, at Copenhagen that they would receive licences for at least 45 per cent. of the volume of export to Denmark in 1931; and if this agreement has been carried out by the Danish Government?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Danish law provides that in general no importer shall have his imports of any particular class of goods restricted to less than 45 per cent. of the value of the same kind of goods imported by him in 1931, and so far as I am aware this provision is being observed by the Danish licensing authorities.

MACHINE TOOLS (IMPORT DUTY).

Mr. HANNON: 32.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give an assurance that the tariff of 25 per cent. on the import of machine tools into this country will be continued for a period of time sufficient to give British firms, prepared to produce foreign tools under royalty in this country and therefore employing increased British labour, the opportunity of expanding their production under the tariff?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The present rate of duty on machine tools is 20 per cent. ad valorem. My hon. Friend can rest assured that the efforts being made by certain manufacturers to increase the output of machine tools in this country would be taken into account in the event of any proposals arising for a reduction in the duty.

Mr. HANNON: Does my right hon. Friend mean by that answer that manufacturers of machine tools in this country will be justified in putting additional capital into this experiment?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not see why they should not do so, with the present rate of duty, which is 20 per cent. ad valorem.

MILK CHOCOLATE.

Sir PATRICK FORD: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the importation of skimmed milk into this country on advantageous terms as compared with full cream condensed milk or milk powders is discouraging the manufacture of milk chocolate of a high nutritive value in favour of milk chocolate of a. low nutritive value; and will he consider a marking order to distinguish the two kinds of milk chocolate or some other method of encouraging the manufacture and sale in this country of the more nutritive variety?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is no power under the Merchandise Marks Act to make an Order of the kind suggested. Questions of quality in relation to foodstuffs are more within the province of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

Sir P. FORD: Are we to understand that the appropriate action is for the manufacturers concerned to apply to the Import Duties Advisory Commission

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no doubt that, if they apply to that commission, the commission will give attention to their representations.

SPAIN (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON (for Captain SOTHERON-ESTCOURT): 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the nature of the further restrictions to be imposed against the imports of British coal into Spain; and whether, in view of the fact that the trade balance between Great Britain and Spain is in favour of the latter country, he can make any statement on the subject?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot at present add anything to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines on the 23rd February to the hon. Member for
Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) and the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dickie).

Mr. NICHOLSON: Are negotiations in progress?

BRITISH ARMY.

JERSEY.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: 37.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the number of regular troops in Jersey; the number of staff officers in the island; and their pay and emoluments?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): There are three officers and three other ranks of the Regular Forces in Jersey, of whom two of the officers are the Lieutenant-Governor and his staff captain. For information as to the rates of pay of these latter officers, I would refer my hon. Friend to Appendix 8 of the current Army Estimates.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Is the staff officer in Jersey provided, in addition to his pay, with a house?

Mr. COOPER: I cannot answer that question offhand.

PENSIONS.

Mr. ROBINSON: 38.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will consider altering the rules governing the award of pension to ex-service men who served in campaigns prior to 1914–18, so as to permit birth certificates instead of the date of birth given on attestation to be taken as evidence of present age?

Mr. COOPER: No, Sir. It is not proposed to alter the rule whereby the age given by a recruit on his first attestation is accepted as his correct age throughout his army career for various purposes, including the assessment of his pension. My hon. Friend will appreciate that it would not always be in the soldier's interest to make this alteration.

Mr. BURNETT: Will the hon. Gentleman arrange that men, on attestation, shall be made aware that any understatement of age will prejudice their claim to pension?

Mr. COOPER: I think it would naturally occur to anybody, if they were contemplating making a false statement, that it might have some deleterious effect on their later career.

TERRITORIAL REVIEW.

Brigadier-General NATION: 39.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it is intended that representative detachments from all over the country shall take part in the Territorial review which it is proposed to hold this summer, or whether it is to be confined to those stationed in the vicinity of London?

Mr. COOPER: It has not yet been decided whether it will be possible to hold a review, but, if it is held, it will be confined to troops in the vicinity of London.

Brigadier-General NATION: Can the hon. Gentleman state whether a Territorial officer will be given supreme command of that parade?

Mr. COOPER: It is too early to give a decision with regard to that question.

Brigadier-General NATION: In view of the fact that the Territorial Army is no less than 45,000 under strength at present, does not the hon. Gentleman think that, if a Territorial officer could be given an important command of this nature, even for one day, it would be a great stimulus?

Mr. COOPER: Yes.

Mr. MAXTON: If it should be decided by the Government to hold such a review, would the cost of that review be met out of the existing Estimates, or would there be a Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. COOPER: It would be met out of the existing Estimates.

Brigadier-General NATION: 40.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any proportion of the £900,000 that is to be included in this year's Estimates for Territorial training will be devoted towards the cost of the proposed Territorial review; and, if so, how much?

Mr. COOPER: No, Sir.

REMOUNTS.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 42.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the number and value of remounts purchased
for the Army during 1932 from the Irish Free State, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and England and Wales; and whether, in view of the recent abolition of the light-horse breeding subsidy, he proposes to make any increase in purchases from the two latter sources during the current year?

Mr. COOPER: I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures for which he asks in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, I would refer him to the reply which I gave on 11th July last to my Noble Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Earl of Dalkeith).

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Would the hon. Gentleman say in anticipation of the circularisation of the information that the horses purchased in England and Scotland are equal to the stamp of those previously purchased in Ireland?

Mr. COOPER: Yes, Sir, I think they are.

Following are the figures:


Place.
Number of remounts purchased in 1932.
Amount paid.




£


Irish Free State
265
14,563


Northern Ireland
456
25,006


Scotland
24
1,570


England and Wales
690
45,814


Total
1,435
186,953

FIGHTING SERVICES (REJECTED RECRUITS).

Mr. LUNN: 41.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office how many men who offered themselves for the Army during 4931 and 1932 were rejected on medical or other grounds?

Mr. COOPER: The figures for the recruiting year 1930–31 were 82,682 men served with notice papers and 46,818 rejected. The corresponding figures for 1931–32 were 70,418 and 41,667. The hon. Member will find these and other figures relating to recruiting in the General Annual Report on the British Army which will be in the possession of Members in a few days.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the hon. Gentleman attribute this large volume of rejections to a raising of the standard of military requirements or to a continuous deterioration in the physique of the men of this country?

Mr. COOPER: I do not think any such conclusion can be drawn from these figures. The standard goes up and down in different districts, in proportion to the number of recruits that are being obtained.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that these rejections for ill-health would be very much fewer if the Government would go in for the policy of open-air nursery schools?

Mr. LUNN: 59.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many men who offered themselves for the Navy during 1931 and 1932 were rejected on medical and other grounds?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): As the Admiralty requires only about one-fourteenth of the total number who offer themselves for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, only the very best men are taken. In the financial year 1930–31, 43,453 men offered themselves. Of these, 38,028 were rejected by recruiters for miscellaneous causes, including obvious physical defects, and 2,451 on examination by medical officers. The comparable figures for 1931-32 are 47,054, 41,063 and 2,781.

Mr. LUNN: 60.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many men who offered themselves for the Air Force during 1931 and 1932 were rejected on medical or other grounds?

Sir VICTOR WARRENDER (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The figures for men recruits for the calendar year 1931 were as follow: application forms completed 11,321: applications taken up 5,914, of which 3,768 were rejected. The corresponding figures for 1932 were 8,265, 2,042, and 1,255. It should be added that the requirements in 1932 were much below those of 1931.

Mr. LUNN: Does not die answer to this question show that we are heading towards a C.3 population?

Sir V. WARRENDER: No, Sir.

POLITICAL HONOURS SCRUTINY COMMITTEE.

Colonel GRETTON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister who are the members of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee appointed in accordance with the report of the Royal Commission on Honours; whether the committee is regularly consulted on all such honours; and when it last met?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): The Political Honours Scrutiny Committee appointed by the present Government in accordance with the report of the Royal Commission on Honours is constituted as follows:
The right hon. Viscount Buckmaster, G. C. V.O. (Chairman).
The right hon. Lord Macmillan.
The right hon. G. N. Barnes, C.H.
The committee is regularly consulted on all proposed honours on account of political services. It last met on the 7th December, 1932, in connection with the New Year list.

Viscountess ASTOR: Was the committee consulted about Miss Amy Johnson?

NATIONAL FINANCE.

NEWFOUNDLAND (ADVANCE).

Mr. LAMBERT: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount and the terms of the loan guaranteed by the British to the Newfoundland Government?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): His Majesty's Government has not guaranteed any loan to the Government of Newfoundland, but the United Kingdom share of the advance recently made to that Government by His Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom and Canada is £166,570, being the sterling equivalent of 625,000 Canadian dollars. A Supplementary Estimate for this amount will shortly he presented to Parliament. The terms of the loan to replace this advance will be settled in the light of the report of the Royal Commission which is about to visit Newfoundland.

SPIRIT DITTIES.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount
of the duty per proof gallon on spirits in the year 1920, and the revenue derived therefrom; and the duty per proof gallon in 1932, and the amount of the revenue raised in that year?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer involves a table of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can my right hon. Friend say generally whether there has not been an enormous loss of revenue by reason of this continued high taxation; and does he recognise that this penal taxation is killing the goose that has laid so many golden eggs for the Treasury in the past?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There has been a loss of revenue, but I should be sorry to enter into any exposition about it now.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that those men who have given up beer and are drinking milk are doing good to the farmers?

Following is the answer:


Spirit Duties.


Rate per proof gallon.
Net amount of revenue received.


1920.
£


Prior to 20th April, 1920
50s.
71 057,000*


On and after 20th April, 1920
72s. 6d.


1932
72s. 6d.
33,776,000 (approximate figures).


* The figures for 1920 represent the net receipts in Great -Britain
and the whole of Ireland, those for 1932 relate to Great Britain and Northern Ireland only.

BEER DUTY.

Sir W. DAVISON: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount raised by Beer Duty to the nearest available date in the current financial year; and how this compares with the Estimates given to the House last year?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The approximate amount of revenue derived from the Beer Duty during the period from 1st April, 1932, to 31st January, 1933, was £64,554,000; the Budget Estimate for the financial year ending 31st March, 1933, was 280,000,000.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does my right hon. Friend not recognise that the friendly warnings which he received a year ago as to the likelihood of this taxation being seriously diminished if it were retained at its present penal amount were justified?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend is comparing 10 months with 12, and it is perhaps too soon to draw a final conclusion.

BANKS (NATIONALISATION).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government will consider drawing up schemes for nationalising big banking concerns similar to that approved by a resolution passed by the landtag of Bavaria?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider this in relation to our present situation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The circumstances of the resolution appear to be rather curious; I understand that it was carried by a combination between Nazis and Socialists and was opposed by the Communist party.

Mr. WILLIAMS: As it seems to have met with the general approval of all parties, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he ought to consider it?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The report which I have seen about the resolution is that it is not to be considered as anything more than a demonstration.

BRITISH MUSEUM (ENTOMOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT).

Mr. G. NICHOLSON: 52.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of authorising the appointment of the five assistant keepers in the entomological department of the British Museum (Natural History) included in the Civil Estimates for the current year, in consideration of the valuable work performed by the department and the deterioration which shortage of staff is causing to the collections?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The Estimates for the current year show the number of assistant keepers which it is intended at a future date to appoint in the British Museum (Natural History) but do not include money provision for the posts in question. The staff of the Museum has recently been strengthened by a net addition of two to the superior staff. A further increase is not considered warranted in present circumstances. I do not accept the view that the collections are deteriorating.

Mr. NICHOLSON: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the appointment of those assistant keepers who have been provided for in the Estimates in view of the opinion widely held among entomologists that the collection is suffering, and that the work of the Museum, which is of Colonial and Imperial value, is also suffering in consequence?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have informed my hon. Friend that I do not consider that the collections are deteriorating, but, if they were, the deterioration would be more academic than vital.

Mr. NICHOLSON: Will the hon. Gentleman visit the Museum once more?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir.

RATES (LICENSED PREMISES).

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: 53.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give figures showing the decreased rateable value of licensed houses for the past year?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I regret that figures of the nature desired are not available.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me what the effect of Schedule A is?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir.

Captain DOWER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that four-fifths of the licensed houses in northern industrial parts are applying to have their rateable values decreased, and that they include many in the neighbourhood of Rotherham?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not know whether or not that is the fact, but the test would be whether they succeed in obtaining reductions.

AFFORESTATION.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: 55.
asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope), as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether any record is kept showing the percentage of trees planted by the Commission that have lived; and what has been thus far the over-all average cost per living tree defrayed out of public funds?

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): Records are kept and show that 77.5 of the trees planted by the Forestry Commission have lived. It is estimated that the over-all average cost per living tree has been 21/5.d.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us in what part of the country the death-rate is highest?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: I should want notice of that question.

ROYAL NAVY (SISAL CORDAGE).

Mr. WISE: 58.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what progress has been made in the trials in His Majesty's fleet of cordage made from East African sisal in substitution for cordage made from foreign fibres; and whether a statement can now be made as to the adoption of sisal for the purpose?

Lord STANLEY: The trials in question have been concluded and the results are sufficiently promising to warrant the partial adoption of sisal for making ropes for His Majesty's Naval Service. The Admiralty have decided, therefore, that so long as supplies of East African sisal can be obtained at satisfactory prices, a substantial proportion of the service requirements for towing hawsers, heaving and hauling lines shall be made from this fibre in lieu of manila, also that sisal shall be used exclusively for a number of small ropes which have hitherto been made from manila. If sisal cordage continues to give satisfactory service, the question of its more general adoption will be considered.

Mr. WISE: May I ask the Noble Lord if the report which has been supplied to the Vegetable Fibres Committee of the Imperial Institute can also be supplied to representatives of the sisal industry in this country?

Lord STANLEY: The Admiralty report has been sent to the Advisory Committee on Vegetable Fibres of the Imperial Institute, which body has been working hand in hand with the Admiralty in investigating the possibilities of sisal. Copies of the report were circulated to members of the committee with the request that it should be regarded as strictly confidential until the question of publication has been considered at a meeting to be held to-morrow.

HOUSING (SLUM CLEARANCE).

Sir PERCY HURD: 61.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that rural housing authorities realise the applicability to certain rural areas of the subsidy under the Slum Clearance Act, 1930; and, if not, whether he will make a statement for their guidance?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The point is one that can be made when the general circular is issued after the present Bill is passed. My right hon. Friend will consider what further action in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend may be desirable.

Sir P. HURD: Can the hon. Gentleman say what the Government subsidy under the Slum Clearance Act of 1930 means in terms of rent?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The subsidy is £2 10s. per person displaced, and, if five persons were displaced from a house, a subsidy of that kind plus the rate subsidy of £3 15s. would amount to a subsidised rent of about 5s. a week for 40 years, so it is very favourable.

POOR LAW.

CASUAL WARDS, CUMBERLAND.

Mr. CAPE: 62.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons that have passed through the casual wards in the County of Cumberland during the years 1930, 1931, and 1932; and what representations have been made by his Department that more casual wards should be opened in that county?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: A count of casuals is only made on Fridays. The highest number so counted in the three years mentioned was 92 in June, 1931. In 1929 the Ministry of Health suggested that two wards should be reopened and this was done.

EXPENDITURE.

Major OWEN: 63.
asked the Minister of Health what proposals the Government has in contemplation for relieving the increasing burden imposed upon local authorities due to the additional demands for public assistance?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend is not in a position to add anything to the statement made by him in the course of the Debate on the Financial Resolution introduced for the purposes of the Local Government (General Exchequer Contribution) Bill.

Major OWEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of Carnarvonshire the estimates for the coming current year have disclosed an increase of 8d. in the rate, and does he not think that something should be done by the Government to meet the enormous increases which are taking place throughout the country?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: These increases are being considered by the Government in connection with the whole survey of the question.

LOCAL LOANS, NORTH WALES.

Major OWEN: 64.
asked the Minister of Health what was the total amount of loans outstanding due from local authorities in each of the six North Wales counties for the years ended 31st March, 1922, and 31st March, 1932, respectively, in respect of housing and of other loan expenditure?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I will send the hon. and gallant Member a statement giving the desired information so far as it is available.

CANADA (DEPORTATIONS).

Mr. MANGER (for Mr. GRAHAM WHITE): 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the number of British citizens who were deported from Canada through becoming a charge on public funds during 1931 and 1932?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): In the years ending March, 1931, and March, 1932, the last two years for which figures are available, the numbers of British deportees from Canada were 3,099 and 4,248 respectively. It is not possible to state how many of these British deportees were deported through becoming a charge on public funds, but of the total number of deportees of all nationalities in the same periods, 51 per cent. and 64 per cent. respectively, were deported for that reason.

Mr. MAXTON: Can the Minister say how many of them were taken out originally under the Empire Settlement Act?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am not able to answer that question without notice.

Viscountess ASTOR: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how many have been deported as being dependent on public charity?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I cannot answer that question without notice.

RACEHORSE "ROYAL RANSOM" (CUSTOMS DUTY).

Mr. BERNAYS (for Sir PERCY HARRIS): 54.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on what date and at what port the racehorse Royal Ransom was received in England from the Trish Free State; and what was the amount of customs duty paid?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The disclosure of particulars regarding the transactions of individual importers, which are obtained by the Customs for official purposes only, is open to obvious objections and would be contrary to well established practice. I see no reason to depart from the usual rule in this instance.

Mr. BERNAYS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this particular horse, within six months prior to its entry into this country, had changed hands for £5,000; and is he further aware of the serious allegations being made that pressure was brought upon the Customs officials to put a low and fictitious value upon the horse?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am aware of a great many facts, but, as I have said, it is not our policy to disclose individual
transactions. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend, if he is in any doubt about the matter, that the Customs have in the past and will in the future vigilantly protect the interests of the taxpayer.

Mr. BERNAYS: As these are serious allegations, will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have already made inquiries, and that is why I have been able to answer the question.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the sum paid in duty was only one-fifth of the value of the horse, which was sold afterwards within six months? It sold for £5,000 and duty was paid on less than one-fifth of £5,000. Is he aware that this was a direct method of evading the tax, and will he, in the public interest, see that some public statement is made on this subject?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think I have told the House that I am aware of a good many facts, but I cannot necessarily relate them to this particular question. I do, however, assure the House that every care is taken to avoid any evasion of tax, and proper action is pursued in every case.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But does the Department take any steps where a horse is deliberately valued at a fictitiously low price, and afterwards passes at a much higher value, to recover duty on what is the obvious value of the horse?

Mr. HORE - BELISHA: Certainly, wherever any wrong is done to the community appropriate action is always taken.

Mr. MAXTON: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied in this case—

HON. MEMBERS: Rothschild!

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction among racing people on this very point, and will he satisfy public opinion by stating definitely that the right value was put on this horse, that the right amount was paid, and that there was no bribery, as is alleged, of Customs officials?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I hope that if it be necessary to take any action public opinion will be fully satisfied.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS (CINEMAS).

Mr. LOGAN (for Mr. THORNE): 56.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of local authorities which have taken a referendum for the opening of cinemas on Sundays; the number in favour and the number against; the number of authorities which have voted in favour but which the Government have vetoed; and the reason for such veto?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I have no information of the number of polls under the Sunday Entertainments Act at which the majority voted against the Sunday opening of Cinemas; for the local authorities are not required to notify me when proposals in favour of such Sunday opening have been defeated. Polls at which the majority voted in favour of the Sunday opening of cinemas have been held in 14 areas; and in three further areas a decision in favour of Sunday opening was reached without a poll being required. The Government have no authority to veto an application for the extension of section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act to a new area; but one such application, in respect of the Urban District of Sidcup, was rejected by this House on the 14th February.

DONCASTER. DRAINAGE AREA.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has any information as to the condition in the Bentley and Lower Don area regarding floods and, if so, what steps have been taken to warn local residents of the impending danger?

Major ELLIOT: I have been in telephonic communication with the Clerk of the Doncaster Drainage Board, and am informed that, although the River Don rose yesterday, there is still a considerable margin, and there is no danger at present of any floods in the Bentley and Arksey area. I was assured that should any danger arise the Drainage Board would at once notify the local authorities interested and warn them of any impending danger.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In case the Don should rise to the danger point, may I
ask whether the wireless can be used as a means of warning the residents of the danger?

Major ELLIOT: I will keep any suggestion of that kind in mind.

LICENSED PREMISES (BEER GLASSES).

Mr. THORNE: 57.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that it is impossible to obtain draught-beer in a measured half-pint glass in certain licensed premises at Streatham; and whether, as this is contrary to the Regulations, he will take any action in the matter?

Sir J. GILMOUR: My attention has not been drawn to the particular circumstances mentioned, but they do not appear to afford any ground for action on my part. The law requires a licensee, if he serves half-a-pint, or more, to serve it in a measure marked according to the Imperial standards, but no offence, I am advised, is committed if he declines to serve half-a-pint.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Lord President of the Council, in the event of

the Motion on the Paper being carried, how far he intends to go to-night?

Mr. BALDWIN: We hope to get the first two Orders, but it is not our intention to ask the House to sit late.

Mr. LANSBURY: I would like to point out that the second Order is a very important and contentious one, and I think that we should not start it at a, late hour.

Mr. BALDWIN: No. I expressed my hope. If the second Order should prove too contentious, we shall certainly not ask the House to sit late to discuss it.

Mr. MAXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect to get the first Order before Eleven o'clock?

Mr. BALDWIN: Oh, yes, I quite expect to.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Captain Margesson.]

The House divided, Ayes, 290; Noes, 37.

Division No. 53.]
AYES.
[3.43 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Drewe, Cedric


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Campbell, Edward Taiwan (Bromley)
Duckworth, George A. V.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Alnsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Duggan, Hubert John


Albery, Irving James
Castle Stewart, Earl
Duncan, James A. L.(Kesington,N.)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Dunglass, Lord


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson


Astbury. Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Elmley, Viscount


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Emmott. Charles E. G. C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chapman, Col.R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Balniel, Lord
Christle, James Archibald
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Clarke, Frank
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Colfox, Major William Philip
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Everard, W. Lindsay


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(Portsm'th,C.)
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Falle, Sir Bortram G.


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Conant, R. J. E.
Fermoy, Lord


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Cook, Thomas A.
Fielden. Edward Brocklehurst


Bernays, Robert
Cooks, Douglas
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Cooper, A. Duff
Ford, Sir Patrick J.


Bilndell, James
Copeland, Ida
Fox, Sir Gifford


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Boulton, W. W.
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Cranborne, Viscount
Glossop, C. W. H.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Crookshank, Capt, H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Goff, Sir Park


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Cross, R. H.
Goldle, Noel B.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Croosley, A. C.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Curry, A. C.
Granville, Edgar


Browne, Captain A. C.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Buchan-Hepburn, P. O. T.
Davison, Sir William Henry
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Burghley, Lord
Denman, Hon. R. O.
Grimston, R. V.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Dickie, John P.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Burnett, John George
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Hales, Harold K.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Salt, Edward W.


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney a Zetl'nd)
Martin, Thomas B.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Harris, Sir Percy
May hew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Savery, Samuel Servington


Hartland, George A.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Scone, Lord


Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Shepperton, Sir Ernest W.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Moore. Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Morris-Jones, Or. J. H. (Denbigh)
Slater, John


Hore-Belisha. Leslie
Morrison, William Shepherd
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)


Hornby, Frank
Moss, Captain H. J.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Horobin, Ian M.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Howard, Tom Forrest
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Smithers, Waldron


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Soper, Richard


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. i.


Hurd, Sir Percy
North, Captain Edward T.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Ormiston, Thomas
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Iveagh, Countess of
Palmer, Francis Noel
Storey, Samuel


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Pearson, William G.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


James, Wing Com. A. W. H.
Percy, Lord Eustace
Strauss, Edward A.


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan.
Petherick, M.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Peto, Sir Basil E.(Devon, Barnstaple)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bllst'n)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Ker, J. Campbell
Potter, John
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Kerr. Hamilton W.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Kimball, Lawrence
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Pybus, Percy John
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Train, John


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ramsay, Capt. A.H. M. (Midlothian)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Leckie, J. A.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Leech, Dr. J. w.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Lees-Jones, John
Rankin, Robert
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lewis, Oswald
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Liddall, Walter S.
Rea, Waiter Russell
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Liewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Wells, Sydney Richard


Locker-Lampson, Rt.Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Weymouth, Viscount


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Reid. William Allan (Derby)
Whiteslde, Borras Noel H.


Lovat Fraser. James Alexander
Remer, John R.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Mabane, William
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Mac Andrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Particle)
Robinson, John Roland
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wise. Alfred R.


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Ross, Ronald D.
Womersley, Walter James


McKeag, William
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


McKie, John Hamilton
Rothschild, James A. de
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Mdday, Hon. Joseph Paton
Ruggles-Brise. Colonel E. A.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Macmillan. Maurice Harold
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)



Magnay, Thomas
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Maitland, Adam
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Victor Warrender.


NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Milner, Major James


Batey, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Brown. C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hicks, Ernest George
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Price, Gabriel


Cape, Thomas
Kirkwood, David
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Lawson, John James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Daggs, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McGovern, John



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. C. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

VISITING FORCES (BRITISH COMMONWEALTH) BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 62.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the winding up of insolvent assurance companies; and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid." [Assurance Companies (Winding up) Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to require the fitting of speedometers to certain classes of motor vehicles; and for purposes connected therewith." [Road Traffic (Speedometer) Bill [Lords.]

ASSURANCE COMPANIES (WINDING UP) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 63.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (FINANCIAL. PROVISIONS) BILL.

Order for Committee read.

The following Motion stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. GREENWOOD:
 That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power so to modify Section one of the Bill as to ensure the continuance of the power of the Minister of Health to grant subsidies in respect of houses built in agricultural parishes.

3.51 p.m.

Mr. SPEAKER: It appears to me that this Instruction is unnecessary, as the Committee, if they thought fit to do so, could so modify Section 1 without any instruction from the House.

Bill considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 1.—(Discontinuance of certain subsidies under 13 & 14 Geo. 5. C. 24 and 14 & 15 Geo. 5. c. 35.)

3.52 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, after the word "house," to insert the words:
 (other than a house in an agricultural parish within the meaning of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924).
I cannot now argue the general question of the stoppage of the subsidy under the Act of 1924. The purpose of this Amendment is to make an exception in the case of houses in agricultural parishes. Members who were in the House in 1924 will remember that the Labour Government then made a distinction between urban houses and houses intended for agricultural workers or persons of like character. There was a good deal of discussion, in which several Members of the present Government took part, and we devised ultimately, out of committee discussions, a definition of an agricultural parish which would limit the special subsidy—the additional subsidy given under the Act of 1924—to those areas which were really agricultural areas. It is true that since the War, under the Housing Act of 1919, under the Act of 1923, and under the Act of 1924, a very large number of houses have been built in rural districts, but to-day the term
"rural district council" does not in any way denote that the council's area is a rural area. There are, in many districts in this country, rural district councils whose areas are primarily urban, and the number of houses built under those Acts, apart from the houses which qualified for a special subsidy under the Act of 1924, for rural workers, was comparatively small.
It is undoubtedly true that there is a special rural housing problem. It is a problem of two kinds. In the first place, there is the problem of the very old houses which are now overcrowded and ought to be replaced, and with it there is the question of the gradual shifting of the agricultural population. On the other hand, there is the larger question for which the Minister of Agriculture, and not the Minister of Health, is responsible—the revival of one of our most fundamental industries. If the housing problem in the countryside is to be dealt with adequately, our submission is that it will not be dealt with in this Measure, as under the terms of this Bill no houses will be built. If we take the number of houses which have been built in agricultural parishes—and that means that all the houses are intended for rural workers —if we take the number of houses built under the Act of 1924 in agricultural parishes up to the end of last year, we find that it was just over 26,000, namely, 26,208; and it is very interesting to observe that 24,500 of them were built by local authorities, and less than 1,700 of them were built by private enterprise. These 26,000 houses were a direct contribution to the problem of rural housing, but that contribution would not have been made had it not been for the special provisions in the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act of 1924. In effect, so far as we can ascertain the number of houses built specifically for agricultural and rural workers since 1924, out of every 23 or 24 only one has been built by private enterprise, and the rest have been built under the provisions of the Act.
It is admitted by hon. Members opposite, and by the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General, who took part in piloting the Bill of 1926, the Housing' (Rural Workers) Act, that there is a rural housing problem, and provision was made six years ago for local authorities to recondition rural housing. It is true that since that time an increased num-
ber of houses or buildings have been reconditioned and made habitable for people in the countryside, but the number is very small. I, myself, never believed in that Bill as a solution of the rural housing problem. Indeed, I remember when the Bill was originally introduced I moved its rejection. During my term of office I did my best, as I think hon. Members who were then in the House will admit, to get the best out of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, and the number of houses reconditioned during 1930 and 1931 was very considerably larger than during the earlier days of the operation of the Act. I am not going to deny that last year the number was larger than it was in 1931, but the number of houses reconditioned is, on the whole, relatively small. I mention the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, because it is an admission of the reality of a rural housing problem, an admission made by the party which is the predominant partner in the National Government at the present time.
My contention is, that the rural district councils, which are rural in character and not semi-industrial, are so impoverished, their rateable value is so small, that they have to be helped in a way that urban districts need not be. That provision was made in the Act of 1924. My second contention is that, having regard to the traditionally low rents in the countryside—it is a vicious circle: low wages, low rents; low rents, therefore low wages—it is not, even with the reduced cost of building to-day, an economic proposition for private enterprise to build houses in the rural area to house the workers. Even if it be true, which I do not admit, in the case of the urban areas, the urban district councils and the municipal boroughs and county boroughs, that they can do without special assistance from the State, that does not apply to the rural area, first, because private enterprise will not build there at the rents which can be charged to the agricultural workers; secondly, because the rural district councils could not, because of the restricted resources at their disposal, in any circumstances build without a subsidy, and could not, indeed, except in favoured areas, even with the very substantial subsidy which was given under the Act of 1924.
I could hope that the Government would give way on this point. We have to admit ourselves beaten temporarily on the major point as regards the abolition of the 1924 subsidy, but there is a powerful case, it seems to me, and one which ought to be accepted by hon. Members opposite, who represent agricultural constituencies to a greater extent than my hon. Friends behind me do. I am disappointed that the last Act placed on the Statute Book by the late Government, the Housing (Rural Authorities) Act has produced no result, because it has not been worked as it should have been. It has made, under the present administration, no contribution. We were to have devoted £2,000,000 to local authorities for the building of 40,000 houses. The latest figures presented to this House show that the Minister has given his approval to the acceptance of tenders in respect of 680 houses. That means that no attack has been made on the problem of rural housing. If it be true that agriculture is one of our fundamental industries, as I believe it is—hon. Members opposite know more about it than I do—if it be true that agriculture is an essential industry of the community, then it is clear, I think, that we ought to have regard to those people whose lives are bound up with the fortunes of that industry. Housing in the countryside is, indeed, a scandal.
Here is an opportunity, this being a National Government, to make an exception to the Government's policy of abolishing subsidies. Here is an opportunity to do something for those who are engaged in an important national industry. I think it is bound to be admitted on all hands that private enterprise, the building societies—such building societies as have taken part in this work—would never dream of going to the country villages, the little hamlets and building three cottages here, four there and 10 somewhere else. That is not the scale on which their operations would work. The Bill will fail to deal with the rural housing problem. If that problem is to be dealt with, it must be dealt with either nationally—and I am not committing myself to any kind of national building—or through local authorities. Local authorities cannot deal with it if the 1924 subsidy is to be taken away. With the utmost difficulty, under very considerable pressure, and then only in
certain selected areas have we been able, with the very substantial subsidy given under the 1924 Act, to build in England and Wales 26,000 cottages.
The problem of the countryside is as serious as that in the towns, and relatively, even admitting the decline in the agricultural population, the problem is becoming more serious. The only solution I can see—and I am not trying to make a party case—is that in this Bill we should at least exempt from the operation of Clause I the powers of local authorities to build in agricultural parishes. I am not asking that the rural district councils, semi-urban and industrial in character, should be allowed a privilege that other industrial areas are not allowed. I am only asking that agricultural parishes, which are agricultural parishes as defined in the Act, should still receive public assistance. It is an awkward term to use in these days, but I am still asking that they should receive financial assistance in this case, for there is no way, short of that, of the problem of housing in the countryside being settled. I hope that on this point the Committee will be with me, and I hope that the Minister will be prepared to grant this very humble request, but one which, I am satisfied, is in the national interest.

4.11 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: I should like to add my plea, if it be necessary—I hope it is not necessary—to exempt these agricultural parishes. I have some confidence, because the Minister of Health built up the whole of his case for the withdrawal of the subsidy on the urban problem. He based his case on what has come to be known as the Ray report, on the suggestion that private enterprise in the towns, owing to the drop in costs and cheaper money, can now construct houses, but when interrupted and questioned on the rural problem, he did not seriously suggest that it applied to rural districts. It is common knowledge that with wages something like 30s. a week, it is impossible in most areas for the agricultural labourer to pay an economic rent. I have a very vivid memory of a discussion on the Housing (Rural Authorities) Act, associated with the name of Tudor Walters. That was an agreed Measure. It was the result of appeals from all parts
of the House. The personality, character, energy and imagination of Sir Tudor Walters gave hope that as the result of that Act being provided with ammunition, the only kind of ammunition necessary, that is to say, money, a real attack would be made on the rural housing problem. That Act has disappeared practically into limbo. It is not in operation. I am going to suggest that if the Minister now will come forward and say that it is going to be revived, that the machinery is again to be put into operation, the need will largely disappear, and I do think that the conscience of the House, the common sense of the country, would demand that, whatever may be done in withdrawing the subsidy from the town problem, it should not be withdrawn in regard to 'agricultural housing.
A very important part of this Bill is Clause 2, which provides the new machinery for bringing into the housing of the working classes, for the first time on a large scale, the building societies. No one could suggest that the machinery of the building society can tackle the scattered problem of houses here, there and everywhere in the numerous rural parishes all over the country. I suggest that this Amendment, aiming at putting into operation the Sir Tudor Walters Act, should be accepted. Let the Minister try a new great experiment in the towns, and deal with this rural question on its own by special treatment. It may be said that, after all, I am a town Member, and what concern have I to go into the interests of rural parishes I Well, my answer is that there is a constant migration from the rural districts to the cities to compete for the only too scarce jobs at the dock-gates, the factory and the workshop. They will leave the rural districts because the agricultural labourer, when he gets married and starts on his own, finds it impossible to get a cottage or a house. The Minister would have the most meticulous economist on his side in drawing into the purview of the Bill the rural housing question.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Speaking as one who would naturally wish to see the largest amount of development in the countryside, I hope the Minister will not accept the Amendment. Every one of us knows that you would have development and expenditure of money in a
great many ways in a great many areas, but many of us also realise that, although in the country districts you might have a considerable improvement in the housing system, what we really want both in the country and in the towns is a restoration of general prosperity which will make the money flow back into the countryside and develop it in a natural way. The Government, as I understand it, are laying it down as a definite matter of policy that subsidies of this kind should not be encouraged as a general rule, although there may be exceptions, and for that reason, realising that the larger side of the Government policy must be a general increase of prosperity, which can only be brought about by drastic reductions in taxation, although every instinct, every desire, and possibly every interest of mine would be to get money for development of the countryside in this way, yet it is essential, if the Government lay down these principles and Amendments are cleverly designed by the Socialist party to break right through the Government policy in this way, that we should resist those Amendments and make it clear that we are going to stand by the Government in their main policy and not be led away by what may seem very attractive at the moment. For that reason, I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. PRICE: Coming from a district which has had difficulty in dealing with housing in small agricultural parishes, I want to add my plea to that of the Mover that the Minister should give this question serious consideration. I have been rather astonished at the urgent support given by hon. Members opposite representing agricultural districts to the removal of subsidies. Our experience has been that in the erection of rural housing in remote districts it is impossible for private enterprise to meet existing demands. Moreover, if prosperity does come to agricultural areas, you will have very great difficulty in retaining the youth there unless you provide through local authorities, to my mind the only authorities who can do it, with financial help from the Government, reasonable, sanitary, social housing conditions. It is a mistake to speak of the agricultural labourer to-day as you would
have done 20 or 30 years ago. He is as intelligent as the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), and he fully appreciates reasonable, sanitary housing conditions for his wife and children.
I do not wish to put any blame on anyone, but the agricultural labourer has never had in the whole history of the country reasonable and fair conditions of housing. There has been some change since 1924 and a certain number of houses equipped with modern sanitary conditions have been erected, which have been greatly appreciated by men and women who never before have had an opportunity of living in a house with a fresh water supply and reasonable sanitary arrangements. I was speaking only last week to one of the most eminent agriculturists in the country, formerly a Member of the House. I was asking for his observations on this Bill as a man purely interested in agriculture. He admitted that one of the difficulties in keeping the youth in the countryside was housing conditions and the lack of houses when the youth who worked on the land is thinking of taking a wife and making a home of his own. The modern youth looks for something better than his grandfather had and, unless you provide it, he will go into the thickly-populated towns to get for his wife and bairns the improved housing and social conditions which are lacking in his own district.
The building societies cannot possibly meet housing necessities in the remote agricultural areas. If we desire to keep in the countryside permanent residents who understand their job, instead of having people rushing into the towns, there are obligations on us to continue the subsidy; otherwise the problem will not be dealt with. A lot has been said during the reign of the National Government about the development and reorganisation of agriculture, and the Government ought to give very kind consideration to the Amendment and not allow rural housing to be retarded. The authorities who have been operating the Act should have an assurance that the State will give financial assistance so that progress may continue. It is in that spirit that I support the Amendment, and I trust the Minister will agree to the renewal of the housing operations
of the Government and give the local authorities the chance of dealing with the problem.

4.26 p.m.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment for reasons which appear to me quite unanswerable. There is danger of a certain confusion of thought on the subject of housing in rural areas. The problem is not really one, but two. There is the problem of housing the agricultural labourer, and the problem of providing accommodation for other inhabitants. The two really have to be dealt with separately. I do not think that the arguments that have been used by hon. Members opposite assist us at all in the problem of housing the agricultural labourer with which we really want to grapple. The other inhabitants of rural areas can in general afford rents of about the same standard as people in the towns, and, as regards the provision of accommodation for them, all the considerations and arguments apply which we have already thrashed out as regards the general issue of subsidies or no subsidies. They will have a better prospect of more new houses under the Bill than they had before, because we are clearing from the path those forces of subsidised competition which prevent the free supply of new houses. There is no case at all for special treatment of inhabitants other than agricultural labourers.
I come now to the class which we really have in mind in the discussion—the agricultural labourer. I entirely agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Price) as to the deserts of that particular class, and I am sure we all have their interests very particularly at heart. I say freely that if I thought that the Amendment was necessary in the interest of agricultural labourers I should take a very different view of it from that which I take now. The passage of the Amendment would be no good whatever to the agricultural labourers. Consider the conditions of the problem as regards the agricultural labourers? We are dealing with a problem which is absolutely different from the problem of the towns because on the whole the population of the rural areas is decreasing
whereas the population of the urban areas is increasing. Unfortunately, I have not the full figures of the new census yet, but I have obtained the best sample I could from the new census of the state of affairs as regards change of population in the rural areas. I find that it has been calculated from the returns already available for the counties of Kent, Surrey, Essex, Hertfordshire, that the agricultural population of those counties declined from 1921 to 1931 by at least the equivalent of a drop of 7 per cent. The decline of the agricultural population in the rural districts which are the districts most affecting agricultural labourers was a good deal more than 7 per cent. Therefore, we perceive at the outset that, clearly, the problem with regard to the agricultural labourer is a problem not of the number, but of the right sort of houses for his accommodation.
The second fact to which I would direct the consideration of the Committee is that new houses at the sort of rents at which they could be let under the subsidy could be very little if any good at all to the agricultural labourer because the rents have been too high. It is no good providing huoses for the agricultural labourer at rents which he cannot afford. In my part of the country agricultural cottages are still let at 1s. 6d. a week and 2s. 6d. is quite a common rent. Workers who can only afford to pay those rents cannot afford to pay the rents of the new houses. It is to meet those two facts, that of a shrinking of population on the whole and the small rents which the agricultural labourer can afford, that we have framed the policy which will be enacted in the present Bill. That policy is to continue special assistance for the sake of agricultural labourers and to continue it in the form in which alone it is going to be any use to them, namely, the reconditioning of existing cottages which, even after reconditioning, can still be let to the agricultural labourer at a rent which he can afford to pay. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) said that the Reconditioning Act of 1926 admitted that there was a special problem. Undoubtedly, it admits that that is a special problem, but it also shows a remedy for the special problem, which is to take the existing cottages which are not up to modern standards as regards what is decent for life and to put
them into a proper state under the very large subsidies provided by that Act.
Let me remind the Committee how very big those subsidies really are. The cost, you will remember, is divided into equal thirds between the local authority, the Exchequer and the owner, and the subsidy goes up to a maximum of £100 per cottage. With the assistance of that subsidy cottages can, after reconditioning, still be let at such low rents as 3s. per week, and 'are available for the agricultural labourer. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the small number of cottages built under that Act. What is the matter? We have a perfectly good Act only it has not been used. Probably one of the principal reasons why it has not been used is because other activities have distracted the authorities' attention. That has been the actual experience under the Act. I propose to do what can be done by central administration to assist the administration by taking a vigorous initiative in calling the attention of the responsible authorities to that Act.
There is another matter. It has been suggested to me by men who have practical knowledge that the reason why that Act—and, I believe, it is probably the solution of this problem—has not been sufficiently used is because it has been too exclusively left in the hands of the county council, though some county councils have done excellent work. Comparisons are odious, and I will not particularise the councils in question. But on the whole there has not been sufficient initiative and energy introduced into the Act by the county councils. I suggest that you would get more steam behind the Act by a mere transference of its powers to county districts, because it is among those who have more intimate knowledge of the special requirements of the smaller areas, the members of the authorities of the county districts, that you get a more pressing necessity to put the Act into force. I therefore propose by way of getting a more ready use of the Act, a freer transfer of the powers from the county council to the county district. That by no means completes the picture of the special help which will still be available to the authorities after the passage of the Bill.
There is another matter in which there is too little interest to which I should like to call attention and enlist the assistance of Members in calling the attention
of their local authorities to the question. The Act of 1930 is also available to the rural authorities for dealing with the evil of the rural slum. There are slums in rural areas as there are in urban areas. Too seldom does it occur to local authorities that they can make use of the powers and subsidies under the Act of 1930 for clearing away their rural slums as well as their urban slums. I will give one instance within my personal knowledge of the sort of good work which can be done. A rural district council in my constituency recently put through a successful scheme for clearing away four cottages which were no longer fit for habitation under the powers contained in the Act of 1930. With the assistance of the full subsidy they provided for the. substitution of four rural workers' cottages in place of the four condemned cottages.

Sir BASIL PETO: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the four cottages can be let at a rent of 2s. 6d. per week?

Sir H. YOUNG: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the point. The subsidies under the Act of 1930 are, as the Committee know, £2 10s. per person displaced from the Exchequer, and £3 15s. per house from the council. It will be found in practical experience that with the assistance of those subsidies the rent charged for the replaced cottages can in normal areas be kept down to 3s. or 4s. per week and thus brought within the reach of the agricultural labourer. It is, therefore, a practical power to be made use of for the betterment of housing conditions of which sufficient use has not yet been made.

Miss RATHBONE: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly say whether that estimate includes rates or not?

Sir H. YOUNG: That is the situation. You are dealing with a different problem from the general problem because you have a shrinking population and one which cannot afford the rent. Ordinary subsidised building has done no good to the agricultural labourer. What you need in order to improve conditions and to give him the house he wants is a more active use of the Reconditioning Act and of the Slum Clearance Act to which I have referred. It will be the policy of His Majesty's Government, as I have said, to take the initiative in
promoting the use of those Acts among the rural authorities.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: I think that the Amendment which stands on the Paper is absolutely essential if rural housing is to continue upon anything resembling adequate lines. The Minister, in a cogently reasoned and temperate speech, has put the view of his Department, but I find myself very far from being convinced by any of the arguments that he put forward. The first argument was the shrinkage in the rural population. There is no doubt that shrinkage has taken place, but it is not universal, and it is accompanied, at the same time, by changes in rural population; an alteration and shifting in rural population which makes new housing essential in those areas in which the rural population is increasing—and there are such areas—instead of diminishing. Moreover, we have to bear in mind the fact that rural housing, neither now nor at any previous period of our history, has never been adequate. It has been insufficient, and, in many oases, of the lowest possible quality. I dare say the right hon. Gentleman knows of villages in which the standard of housing is so low that the reconditioning of such houses is practically impossible.
I very much regret that I have not the figures—I have been inquiring into specific figures and hope to have them before the Third Reading of the Bill—but surely the Minister will agree, that in many cases, and in many areas, the reconditioning of houses is also intolerably expensive and is not the most economic method of dealing with the problem. You have exceptions to the rule. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) is not here, but, if he were, I am sure that he would assure the Committee that in Devonshire the reconditioning of rural cottages has worked extremely well. But then, my right hon. Friend is there to put pressure upon the county council, and he does it with great effect. In other areas the Measure has not been effective, and, indeed, in some areas cannot be effective, owing to the difference of cost between one area and another. I hope to be able to show the right hon. Gentleman, before the Bill is finally through the House,
that in certain parts of the North of England reconditioning of rural cottages is not an economic proposition. It was the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, that the population in the rural areas was decreasing and that what was wanted was not new houses but the reconditioning of old ones. On various grounds I dissent from that view.
But I go much further. The Minister has stated that the building of new houses, with the subsidy, has not provided and cannot provide houses at rents which agricultural labourers can pay. That is not so. I have here a report of a scheme which is being carried out by a rural district council, in which houses are being built to be let at very low rents. The rents can be fixed at 2s. 7d. a week, plus rates is., making 3s. 7d. The houses show a profit of 5d. per week per house if they are let at 4s. a week. The rural district council will come out flat if the houses are let at 3s. 7d. Four shillings is the rent which an agricultural labourer can pay and is going to pay.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Can the hon. Member tell us the size of those houses?

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Yes. The superficial area is 759 square feet, the accommodation is three bedrooms, a living room 15 feet by 12 feet 10 inches, a wash-house and a bathroom.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Built under the 1930 Act?

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Under the 1924 Act.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Under the Wheatley Act?

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Under the Chamberlain and Wheatley Acts, I presume. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the cost per house?"] The cost of the house which enables rents to be fixed which agricultural labourers can, and in this case will, pay, is £281. The land in this particular case has been given, but even if it had not been given it would only have added a trifling cost to the price of the house. It would not have affected the rent more than 1d. per week. That is an actual case, of which the Minister must have knowledge, in which rural housing under the subsidy is being carried on, and houses are being built for agricultural labourers, which will be inhabited by agricultural labourers, at rents which
they can pay. With prices in their present condition there is no reason why a policy on the same lines should not be carried out in many more areas. I should be prepared, if the Minister would make a concession, to accept half the present subsidy for rural houses. I think it would then still be possible, with a £5 10s. subsidy instead of the £11 subsidy, to build houses which the agricultural labourer could inhabit and of which he could pay the rent.
I am sure the Committee would be extremely gratified if the Minister would give us that concession, because it is not a subsidy that would cost the country vast sums of money. The amount of rural housing that is needed, although large, is not enormous, and the Minister by making that concession would put the necessary drive into rural housing, which cannot possibly come from simply handing over to rural district councils the necessary authority to use the Reconditioning Act. I should like to hear what the Minister's experience is in regard to that Act. I know that in some areas it has worked fairly well, but I know positively that in other areas it is not an economic proposition, and cannot be made one. I am equally certain that there are all over the country, we have all seen them, houses that have fallen into disrepair, or are falling into disrepair, or ought to be abandoned, which no amount of architectural ingenuity can ever render habitable.
The second class of person with whom the Minister was concerned was a very important class—the person who is not an agricultural labourer but who lives in a rural area. There, again, I differ from the Minister's proposition. He said that under this Bill private enterprise will be able to build houses at approximately the same rents, or at the same rents, at which houses of that character are being built at the present time. That is not so. The rents which private enterprise will have to charge under the scheme of borrowing from the building societies, to put it at the lowest figure, will be 12s. per week. That is a high rent, whereas at the present time I can draw the attention of the Minister and the Committee to houses that are being built for that particular class of people, according to their quality and size, to be let at 9s. 10d., 7s. 9d. and 6s. a week.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: Can the hon. Member give us any data on which he bases the figure of 12s. as the rent chargeable by private enterprise?

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Yes. That is the rent which is being charged, with the subsidy, at the present time by local authorities, and there is no reason to suppose that private enterprise is so much more skilful than public enterprise, seeing that they will employ the same contractors in the building of the houses, that they will be able to build cheaper.

Mr. BEAUMONT: Is it not a fact that private enterprise has built houses and is letting them at rents much lower than that?

HON. MEMBERS: Where?

Mr. JOHNSTONE: That is not so. The houses that are going to be built by private enterprise for this class of people will be at rents averaging not less than 12s. I do not think that the Minister claims that the rent will be any lower than that.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: Surely, if houses have been built in rural areas at 2281, the rent of 12s. now mentioned by the hon. Member is entirely out of relation to his figures.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I agree, if the figures related to the same class of house, but I would point out that the houses in question do not come up to the standard which will be required in regard to the expense of drainage, of road making, of site and the rest of it, that is required for urban houses.

Lord E. PERCY: In rural areas if the agricultural labourer can get a house built for £281, why should he pay 12s. rent for it.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: It is a different house altogether, but even in regard to the cheaper house of the agricultural labourer, if you take the subsidy away the rent to which I have referred, amounting to 4s. per week, inclusive of rates, would be approximately 8s. a week.

Lord E. PERCY: No.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Indeed it would. I have been referring to houses which are being built to let, with the subsidy,
at 9s. 10d., 7s. 9d. and 6s. Without the subsidy the rents would be 138. 10d., 12s. and 10s.

Lord E. PERCY: indicated dissent.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Certainly. I cannot argue with the Noble Lord here. Perhaps I might take him out into the Lobby and in half an hour I might enlighten him as successfully as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary enlightened my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason). My point is, that for those who reside in rural areas but who are not engaged as agricultural labourers there are at present being built with the subsidy, houses to let at 9s. 10d. a week for the parlour type, with three bedrooms, 7s. 9d. for non-parlour type, three bedrooms, and 6s. for non-parlour type, two bedrooms, inclusive of rates. That is the type of rent which those people can pay. They are being provided in this particular instance by a public utility society in three different classes, to meet three different classes of wages, three different sizes of family, and three different sorts of requirements, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that under this Bill activities of that kind, which are exceedingly useful, will immediately come to an end, nor do I think that under the Bill they will be replaced by the activities of private enterprise enabling houses to be let at the same rents.
The right hon. Gentleman said that over a large part of the country houses to be let at approximately the same rents at present being charged for council houses can be built by private enterprise, at a profit. That applies to a great part of the country, but it certainly does not and can never apply to the rural areas, whether in regard to houses for the agricultural labourer or the individual who lives in a rural area and is engaged in what is known as rural industries. I am sure the Minister is anxious that housing should proceed under the Bill. He would do an immense amount to prevent harm being done if he would grant one-half the subsidy, if he cannot grant the whole. There is a strong case for reducing the subsidy, which was granted at a time when costs were immensely higher. Costs have fallen and the necessity for so high a subsidy has
also decreased, but some subsidy there must be, or the form of activity with which I have been dealing will cease.
The Minister made one final reference to the question of rural slum areas. There I am in complete agreement with him. I do not believe that anything like sufficient advantage has been taken of the opportunity of clearing rural slums. Anyone who knows the country, particularly small country towns, must know of little back streets in which there are slums as bad as any in our great cities. I trust that the Minister will take steps to encourage local authorities to schedule these slum areas and get on with the clearance of these slums. Before we dispose of the Amendment I hope we shall have a further explanation from the Government on the question of houses for the agricultural labourer. I cannot see how, in the face of the figures I have given for rural districts, the Minister can maintain the proposition that under the subsidy new houses cannot be built to let at rents which the agricultural labourer can pay. That is not so, it is being done; and the Bill, unamended, will prevent it being done and thus set back the whole case of the rehousing of our rural population, which is just as urgent a question as the housing of our urban population.

5.2 p.m.

Captain HEILGERS: The Minister of Health has stated that there are two problems, which are entirely separate, one, the problem of the agricultural worker and, secondly, the problem of the other residents. I cannot agree that they are not in some ways interlocked. Many people have been unable to obtain "C" class houses in the towns and have descended upon the countryside. They now occupy houses which should be occupied by agricultural workers. The 24,000 houses referred to by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) have taken off some of these people, but a great many are still occupying these houses, and unless we have some type of new house for rural districts we shall never really cure the housing problem in our rural areas. The Minister of Health also stated that there has been a decrease of 7 per cent. in the numbers living in rural districts.

Sir H. YOUNG: No. That was only a sample figure, taken from the last
Census in connection with certain districts, to which I referred.

Captain HEILGERS: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but at the same time there has been a decrease in the number of rural houses. Many in my own district have become so rotten and obsolete that they have been allowed to fall down. As regards the future of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, I am glad to hear that the Government propose to hand over its administration to the district councils. It has been a success only in a few county councils like Devon, and East Suffolk, and in Scotland, but in those districts where it has been a success I hope the Government will consider the possibility of the county councils being allowed to continue the good work they have done in the past.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: I want to call the attention of the Committee to what, in my opinion, is the vital and fundamental matter which underlies the question of rural housing. Since I have been in this House I have heard from time to time expressions of opinion from all sides that we have to get back to prosperity in agriculture, to get the people back upon the land, if we are to get rid of some portion of our great army of unemployed. I suggest that it will be impossible to get people back to work on the land unless you ensure to them decent housing conditions for themselves and their families. In the main it is true to say that the only remedy in many of our rural areas for the housing problem is to pull down at least two-thirds of the existing buildings and rebuild them again. Reconditioning is no solution of the problem. The majority of these places are too far gone already to rebuild, or to be reconditioned, and the surroundings of these places, the drainage, are such that many of us feel ashamed of the conditions under which agricultural labourers are asked to exist.
Hon. Members opposite always put themselves forward as representing the true interests of agriculture. They are always anxious to impress upon us that they are the agricultural party, and I am told that at election times they very often talk to the wives of agricultural labourers about the bad conditions; and so on. This important Amendment is
designed to do something practical for the agricultural labourer, but very few of those who are supposed to represent the best interests of agriculture are taking any interest in the Debate. I appeal to the Minister to allow the 1924 subsidy to continue. Far more might have been done had there been goodwill and determination among those who sit on county councils and rural district councils to do something to improve the housing conditions in their areas. I feel sometimes that the class who are elected on these bodies are very anxious indeed to do nothing to build more houses in their areas. The tied house system is a scandal in our rural districts, and many of those who flourish among the farmers and who are of the type which the tied house system suits, are elected to our local bodies and to county councils, and are the most reactionary among the whole agricultural population. Consequently you get a drag upon the wheel.
The Minister says that he cannot agree that the subsidy should go on. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) talked as he usually talked; and suggested that in some way the demand for housing in rural areas, and the subsidy, is something in the nature of Socialism. There are men of good will on all sides in this Committee who demand that there shall be a square deal for the agricultural labourer and for the rural areas; and to say that it is a demand for Socialism is preposterous to say the least. I am surprised that the Minister considers that there are two problems; the question of the agricultural labourer and the problem of the others. "The others," I suppose, are the carpenters and masons, and bricklayers, whom he says can afford to pay rents equal to those paid in the towns. I put it to anyone who has a knowledge of rural life and conditions that it is not true to say that these "others" can pay anywhere near the rents which are paid in the towns. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Johnstone) has proved conclusively that given the will and a continuance of the subsidy, given a desire to get a drive in rural areas, something can be done, but there is a weight in these rural areas which, in spite of all the efforts of men of good will, is sufficient to keep back and retard any efforts towards improving housing conditions.
If it is true, and I think it is possible to get a real revival in agriculture, which is the one thing which holds out some hope for our people in the future, I am confident that the Government must face the question of housing. If county councils and rural district councils will not carry out their work then the responsibility lies on the Minister of Health to tell them to do their job or he will be obliged to do it for them. The Bill drops the subsidy and gives the whole matter into the hands of the building societies. I repeat that I am confident that building societies will not do this class of work in rural areas. The Minister says that they can use the Slum Clearance Act. Yes, but the difficulty is how are we to compel these people, knowing the facts as we do, to open their eyes and declare that there are any slums in any rural area. You will have considerable difficulty in persuading many of the farmers that there are, as a matter of fact, any slums in their particular area. The idea still remains in the minds of many of them that almost any kind of accommodation is good enough for the agricultural labourer, and accommodation is so terribly scarce that these men, who after all are the backbone of the country, are compelled to live in hovels which are a disgrace to our civilisation.
We have a perfect right to make an appeal to the Committee to help us in the problem of rural areas. I wish we could get rid of the tied-house system altogether, and get enough free cottages in the village and the hamlet to enable agricultural labourers to have a choice of accommodation. If we are to deal with this matter we must realise that we cannot get prosperity back to the countryside by paying low wages, or by providing houses with low rents to go hand in hand with low wages. Prosperity can only be brought back to the countryside by having well paid agricultural labourers living in decent houses, with a chance for their children. Unless you do that you may tinker with this problem year after year and pass Acts of Parliament, as you have done, without touching the problem, and you will still be up against it. There will be reactionaries who will put sprags into the wheel of every effort to improve housing conditions in the country. If the Minister is really enthusiastic and
sincere, I ask him to take over this matter of rural housing and declare that he will see that something definite is done on behalf of the rural population. If these hidebound county councils and rural councils will not do their job, the Minister should take the matter in hand and do the job for them.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I regret that I did not hear the Minister's speech or the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Johnstone), but I want to say that I am in fundamental disagreement with those who, in what they allege to be the interests of the agricultural labourer, of whom they probably know singularly little, desire to increase or continue the subsidies for rural housing. There is a fundamental difference between those, like hon. Members of the Socialist party who quite honestly and sincerely believe that the housing of the people is primarily a Matter for the State, to be assisted by private enterprise, and those who, like myself and the majority in this House, believe that it is primarily a matter for private enterprise, to be assisted if necessary, and only if necessary, by the State. That is a sincere difference of opinion on which we are not likely to find any common ground of agreement. I suggest that the Government are right in saying that the time has come when State subsidies can serve no useful purpose in the matter of general housing.
The hon. Member for South Shields, in a most able and informative speech, gave an instance with the details of which he had been kind enough to furnish me, in which rural housing is being provided by a rural district council at rents which the agricultural labourer can and in fact will pay. But the fact remains, and the hon. Member who has just spoken showed an appreciation of the point in his somewhat fanciful condemnation of certain rural district councils, that though it may be that in this particular instance these houses are being provided, taking the country as a whole the houses for the rural population, at rents which they can afford to pay, are in fact not being built. Anyone who goes to the country districts, particularly those not very remote from London, knows that many houses are being built by rural district councils ostensibly for the rural
population, and are in fact lived in by week-enders and other people who have no connection with the locality, while the rural population prefer to continue to live in the hovels so justly condemned by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) and by the hon. Member for South Shields, and these rural workers are living in these hovels because of the difference in rent. That has been going on all over the country for a considerable period.
If this Bill does nothing else it will stop that most deplorable practice, because there is no reason whatever why an impoverished countryside should be called upon to build, or the Government be called upon to subsidise, week-end cottages for urban dwellers in the rural areas. I differ also from the hon. Member for South Shields in his assertion that private enterprise cannot now build houses for the people of rural areas who are not in fact agricultural labourers—houses at rents which they can afford to pay. The fall in building prices has reduced the cost. to such an extent that private enterprise can, and in fact has already begun to, cope with the situation. I failed entirely to follow the argument of the hon. Member for South Shields that 8s. a week represented the value of the subsidy. I do not understand where he got his figures. If we take a comparable figure it is nearer 2s. You can find new houses being built by private enterprise, some without the subsidy, at rents which the population in the rural areas, not agricultural labourers, can and do pay.
I agree with the hon. Member for South Shields that the housing of the agricultural population is not an economic proposition in the true sense of the word, but I believe that private enterprise is now, in view particularly of the complete failure of the subsidy system in the past as far as other housing is concerned, in a better state to deal with it than is any local authority. While I have not the virulent objection to the subsidy in principle that some of my hon. Friends have, I do believe that the subsidy, as far as the housing problem still remains is concerned, has lamentably failed, and I am delighted that the Government have seen fit to discontinue it.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I want to ask the Minister to reconsider some of the arguments that he has used to-day. His first argument really was that the rural population is decreasing and that therefore there is not the same demand fox houses in rural areas as there would be if the rural population were not decreasing. The right hon. Gentleman divided the rural population into two classes, the class of agricultural labourers who, he says, cannot afford to pay an economic rent, and another class that he think can afford to pay a rent approximately the same as the rent now paid by workers in town areas. I put it to him that if the rural population is decreasing, as it undoubtedly is, one of the main reasons for the decrease is the lack of suitable housing accommodation for the people who live in the rural areas and desire to continue to work there. It has been said many times that young couples desiring to get married cannot find any kind of accommodation in rural areas, and consequently there is every inducement for a man to seek occupation in or near one of the big towns if he can get any kind of accommodation there at all.
The other class is the class of which the Minister speaks entirely wrongly, the class that he thinks can afford to pay rent about equal to that which is being paid in urban areas by similar types of workers. I think the Minister will realise that in all negotiations for wages between trade unionists and their employers, the rural population of mechanics and the type of workers who are generally catered for by trade unions, are compelled to accept a lower wage because the conditions of living in the country are not as expensive as in the towns. I have had some experience of that type as representing the working-class people, and I hardly remember an instance, when we were negotiating on wages in rural areas and in agricultural areas, and in fact in the areas surrounding the smaller towns, where we have not been met with the argument that rents are lower there and that therefore wages ought to be lower. But the Minister tells us that these people are able to pay and in fact do pay a rent equal to that which is paid in the towns. I think the right hon. Gentleman on further inquiry will find that his information is entirely wrong.
The right hon. Gentleman also told us that in the past, with the subsidy, we have never provided houses at rents which the agricultural labourer could pay. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) said that the houses that had been built had been used very largely by week-enders. I can hardly imagine that there is much truth in that statement, although I have seen it in the Press a good deal, for I presume that county councils and rural councils pay the same attention to the question of their tenancies as is paid by the urban councils, and I can hardly imagine their building houses for use by their own people in their own area and then letting those houses to week-end trippers. In fact I imagine that the Ministry, if it were aware of such practices, would very soon put a stop to them. It is impossible for such a thing to be done on anything like a large scale. But the Minister's main argument was that the houses were not of much value to the agricultural labourer because the rents were too much for him to pay. Now he is proceeding by this Bill to take away the subsidy which without doubt will make the rents considerably higher than they were before.
I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Johnstone) which the hon. Member for Aylesbury attempted to controvert. It was said that it is not possible, even under present conditions in rural areas, to build houses at a rent that the agricultural worker can pay. The Minister will be aware of a housing scheme with which I had some association. We built houses of three bedrooms, 12 to the acre, with all the modern amenities that are allowed in houses built by urban authorities, and we let them at 5s. 3d. a week with a £7 10s. subsidy. If they can be built with that subsidy, after paying for the land, and let at that rent, I ask the Minister to consider at what rent the houses could be let if, instead of the £7 10s. subsidy, there was a £11 subsidy as suggested in the Amendment. With £11 subsidy those houses could be let at approximately 4s. 4d. per week, provided that they were built under the conditions that prevailed at the time when those houses were built, that is 18 months to two years ago.
Since then prices have fallen considerably and if allowance is made for the
fall in prices, these houses could now be let at approximately 4s. a week. There are many thousands of agricultural labourers who would be delighted to get a house of the kind to which I have referred at 4s. a. week. But if they are to be left to the tender mercies of the building societies and the jerrybuilders, then I am afraid that the agricultural labourers' opportunities of decent housing conditions in the future are practically nil. "But," says the Minister, "we are going to recondition some of the old houses and we may spend in some cases up to £100 upon reconditioning." For the purposes of the people who have to live in these houses after they are reconditioned, it would be infinitely better if the Minister spent £100 in building some kind of decent wooden house with modern amenities and decent sanitary conditions.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury suggested that we on these benches knew nothing of agricultural conditions. I have lived in agricultural cottages —not for any long period of time, thank heaven, because it is no pleasure to live in an agricultural cottage in any part of the country. But I am qualified to claim that I know something of the conditions by the fact that I have lived in these cottages and I very much doubt if the hon. Member for Aylesbury has had that experience. My point is that the Minister, by his policy, can only succeed in one thing and that is to make it impossible for building to go on at all in agricultural areas unless the subsidy is granted. A plea has been made to him to grant even a reduced subsidy. Personally I think that if houses are to be provided for the agricultural labourer to meet the needs of the situation it will be necessary to have the full subsidy, but, when we take into account the reduction in the cost of building and in the cost of money since the subsidy was fixed at £11, the agricultural labourer might be able to get houses to-day, built by local authorities with half the subsidy, at a rent approximating to that at which he could get a house at the time when the £11 was fixed.
I ask the Minister to consider the fact that agricultural houses have never been sufficient at any time during his lifetime or mine. Ever since I was a boy I have heard the story of the bad housing conditions in rural areas. I think the Min-
ister himself in his Parliamentary career has made speeches about the housing of the agricultural labourer. We have often heard it said that the agricultural labourer lived under conditions which were not decent and of which the country ought to be ashamed. We have heard pleas, especially when the Labour Government were in office, from hon. Members who now sit opposite and who appear to have forgotten those pleas, that the agricultural labourer should be given decent housing conditions. Such opportunities as he had of securing decent conditions under the existing law will be taken away from him by the Minister, unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to make this concession. I hope therefore that those who sit behind the Minister and who have talked so much about the agricultural labourer will show their earnestness by voting for the Amendment.

5.35 p.m.

Sir JONAH WALKER SMITH: I do not suppose that the Minister in his consideration of this Amendment will be greatly influenced by the views expressed by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). It seems to me that the argument which the hon. Member submitted was fallacious and it is an argument to which the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) lent a certain amount of support. The suggestion appeared to be that there is something immutable in the policy of the Minister; that, as and from a certain date, say 7th December, 1932, onwards, in no circumstances whatever and for no purpose, shall there be any Government subsidy. That of course is not the policy of the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman has on the Order Paper an Amendment which would provide for the extension of the subsidy to those schemes which had been under consideration for some considerable time and had reached a stage of maturity before 7th December, 1932. Thus, in due course if that Amendment is accepted as I have no doubt it will be, the subsidy will apply to those houses. 'Further, the subsidy is to apply for a further period to all houses built in Scotland for the reason—very properly—that there is a considerable lag in the provision of working class houses in Scotland and it is right that that lag should be overtaken by means of the extension
of subsidy. There is recognised to be a considerable lag also in the provision of houses in connection with slum clearance—

The CHAIRMAN: May I call the hon. Member's attention to the Amendment which is before the Committee? He has made no reference to it at all up to the present.

Sir J. WALKER SMITH: The point of my argument is that there is a great dearth of houses in agricultural parishes, and, just as it is right and proper that subsidy should be available for houses in connection with slum clearance, just as it is right and proper that subsidy should be available for houses under those schemes which had reached maturity by 7th December, 1932, so it is right and proper that subsidy should be available, as the Amendment provides for houses in agricultural parishes which are so urgently required. I have no particular love for subsidies to industries of any kind, and especially to the building industry, and the building industry as such never asked for any subsidy from the Government. The subsidy has been asked for the provision of houses by local authorities and others, but never by the building industry. The building employers urged the Minister two years ago, and have consistently held the view, that it is desirable that subsidies for all housing purposes should be withdrawn. There may have been some who thought that a subsidy would be a good thing for the industry but for the building industry the subsidy has been Dead Sea fruit, turning to ashes on their lips. No one dislikes subsidies more than I do.
Nevertheless I do not think there is anyone who is interested in agricultural development and in the housing of the agricultural workers who can fail to give a certain amount of sympathy, if not of support, to this Amendment. It ought to be supported upon at least three grounds. First, there is the exceptional dearth of houses in agricultural parishes. Secondly, even with the amount of subsidy hitherto available— £11 from the Government and £3 15s. from the local authority—it has been impossible for rural district councils to provide houses in agricultural parishes. Third, while under the Act of 1931 additional facilities were provided to meet the needs of agricultural parishes that Act, if it has not been maladministered has
been administered without the sympathy and understanding which I think is requisite. For those reasons the Amendment ought to find acceptance in the Committee.
Under the Act of 1931 a committee was set up to assist and advise the Minister in the provision of houses in agricultural districts. It was decided, or at any rate it was so understood, to place at the disposal of that committee £2,000,000. That committee has never functioned in the manner intended and I gravely fear that it has been regarded very much as a smoke screen for Departmental inactivity. Since the War and prior to 1931 the number of houses erected in rural districts by local authorities has been about 41,000, out of the total of 700,000 erected by local authorities. About 5 per cent. of the total have been erected in rural districts. Of that percentage the number erected in the agricultural parishes of rural districts has been about 15,000 or rather about 2 per cent. of the total number of houses erected by local authorities all over the country. Of those houses erected in the agricultural parishes only one-third—that is one-third of 15,000 or about two-thirds of 1 per cent. of the total number of houses erected by local authorities in the whole country—are those available for agricultural workers.
It is to remedy that state of affairs that the Amendment is designed. It was recognised during the passage of the Act of 1931 that the dearth of houses in rural districts for agricultural workers was serious and clamant. That dearth had not been met by the ordinary financial facilities previously available considerable though those were, and it seemed to be recognised that, whatever might have been the shortcomings in the past either of Government Departments or local authorities, under the 1931 Act the stigma of apathy was to be removed and facilities made available for housing agricultural workers in the agricultural districts. Under that Measure considerable facilities were provided. A sum of £2,000,000 was placed at the disposal of the Minister and additional powers were conceded to the county councils upon whom the Minister now appears to rely very considerably for assistance. They were given the power to supersede recalcitrant and lethargic rural district
councils in cases where it was necessary to do so and further powers were given them by which they could make an additional monetary contribution themselves. Further, there was a committee set up which was supposed to consist of able and practical men who were to have the opportunity of assisting the Minister, but they have never had the opportunity of assisting the Minister in the spirit that was intended when the Act of 1931 passed through this House. I wish for a moment to compare that which was anticipated to be done for the purpose of providing agricultural cottages when the Act of 1931 was passed with what actually has been accomplished.

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to keep a little more strictly to the Amendment before the Committee. This has nothing to do with the Act of 1931, and we cannot have a disquisition on that Act.

Sir J. WALKER SMITH: I submit to your Ruling, Sir. My argument was directed to showing that that very great need which was established beyond any doubt in 1931, still exists, and I wish to tell the Committee, with your approval, that extremely little, a ridiculously small amount, has been done under that Act, that therefore almost 99 per cent. of that which was recognised as being required in 1931 still requires to be done, and that this Amendment should be passed in order to allow of a little further instalment. It was considered in 1931 that at least 40,000 houses for agricultural parishes should be erected, not in the course of a great number of years, but immediately, as they were required at that very moment. One year was given within which that particular scheme had to be carried out. A matter of 40,000 houses had to be provided by the Ministerial machinery in 1931, and £2,000,000 was placed at the Minister's disposal to effect that purpose. I know there was a fundamental defect in the Act of 1931, in that—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member may be quite in order in referring to that Act, but he really is not entitled to go at great length into discussion about that Act, which does not come under this Amendment at all.

Sir J. WALKER SMITH: I submit to your Ruling, Sir. What I wished to show
was how extremely little had already been done and what a very large balance remained to be done towards that which was recognised as essential in 1931. Thereby, I wished to show how very necessary it was that this Amendment should be passed, in order that there might be a little more done towards providing the enormous lag which was shown so clearly in 1931. The net result under that Act is that there has been provided at the present time the merest dribble of houses. I understand that up to the present the Minister has approved about 400 houses. That is the way in which this great scheme is flickering out. Forty thousand houses were recognised and agreed upon all sides to be urgently required, and as they were required then, so they are required now, but that number has gradually dwindled and dwindled, until the 7,000 houses for which the rural councils applied were reduced to 4,000, and then, by a stroke of the Ministerial pen, they were reduced again to 2,000.

I doubt very much if there has been a single house completed up to the present, though approval has been given for 400 houses; that is to say, 400 houses in 20 months, when it was intended that 40,000 houses should be built in 12 months. My point is that the need remains clamant, that it is such a vital need that ordinary financial assistance was found to be quite impossible, and that therefore special financial facilities were provided. The proposal under the Bill as presented to the Committee today is not only that special facilities should be withdrawn, but that ordinary facilities also should be withdrawn, that no facilities whatever should be available for houses in agricultural parishes, and that the needs of agricultural workers should be left to Providence.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 51; Noes, 305.

Division No. 54.]
AYES.
[5.50 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Janner, Barnett
Price, Gabriel


Banfield, John William
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Batey. Joseph
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rea, Walter Russell


Brown C. W E. (Notts.. Mansfield)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buchanan, George
Kirkwood, David
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Wellhead, Richard C.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Logan, David Gilbert
Wedgwood. Rt. Hon. Joslah


Curry, A. C.
Lunn, William
White, Henry Graham


Daggar, George
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McGovern, John
Williams. Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maxton, James
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Milner, Major James



Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Owen, Major Goronwy
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harris, Sir Percy
Parkinson, John Allen
Mr. D. Graham and Mr. G.




Macdonald.


NOES.


Acland Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Borodale, Viscount
Christie, James Archibald


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Boulton, W. W.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Clarke, Frank


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Albery, Irving James
Bracken, Brendan
Collox, Major William Philip


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman {Liverp'l, W.)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trant)
Brass, Captain Sir William
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Conant, R. J. E.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Broadbent, Colonel John
Cook, Thomas A.


Atkinson, Cyril
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cooke, Douglas


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Browne, Captain A. C.
Courtauld, Major John Sewell


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Buchan, John
Cranborne, Viscount


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Buchan-Hepburn, p. G. T.
Crookthank, Cot. C. de Windt (Bootle)


Balniel, Lord
Burnett, John George
Cross, R. H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Crossley, A. C.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks, Aylesbury)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Dalkeith, Earl of


Beaumont. Hon. R. E. B.(Portsm'th,C.)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Davidson. Rt. Hon. J. C. C.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, city)
Davies, Maj.Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prismth., S.)
Davison, Sir William Henry


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Cazlet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Dawson, Sir Philip


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks, Skipton)
Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.STr J. A.(Birm.,W)
Danville. Alfred


Blindell, James
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh. S.)
Dickie, John P.


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Dower, Captain A. V. G.


Drewe, Cedrlc
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lewis, Oswald
Robinson, John Roland


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Liddall, Walter S.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Duggan, Hubert John
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ross, Ronald D.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunllffe-
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Dunglass, Lord
Llawellin, Major John J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lack wood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Elmley, Viscount
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Ruseell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mabane, William
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)
Salt, Edward W.


Everard, W. Lindsay
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Fade, Sir Bertram G.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassctlaw)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
McKie, John Hamilton
Savory, Samuel Servington


Forestler-Walker, Sir Leolln
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Scone, Lord


Fox, Sir Gifford
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Sellay, Harry R.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Magnay, Thomas
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Maitland, Adam
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Shepparson, Sir Ernest W.


Gillett, Sir George Master man
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Glossop, C. W. H.
Martin, Thomas B.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Slater, John


Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Mailer, Richard James
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Goff, sir Park
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Goldie, Noel B.
Milne, Charles
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tfd & Chisw'k)
Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Graham, Sir F. Fergut (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mitcheson, G. G.
Somervlile, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mclson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Soper, Richard


Grimston, R. V.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Spean, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Guntton, Captain D. W.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fyide)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Morrison, William Shepherd
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Storey, Samuel


Hales, Harold K.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Nail, Sir Joseph
Strauss, Edward A.


Hanbury, Cecil
Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hanley, Dennis A.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Hartington, Marquess of
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Sutcllffie, Harold


Hartland, George A.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Peters'fld)
Templeton, William P.


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kennlngt'n)
North, Captain Edward T.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nunn, William
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Peake, Captain Osbart
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Hepworth, Joseph
Pearson, William G.
Train, John


Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Peat, Charles U.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Percy, Lord Eustace
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Petherick, M.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Hornby, Frank
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Horobin, Ian M.
Peto, Geoffrey K.{W'verh'pfn.Bilston)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Horabrugh, Florence
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Howard, Tom Forrest
Potter, John
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Hurd, sir Percy
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wayland, Sir William A.


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Purbrick, R.
Walls, Sydney Richard


Iveagh, Countess of
Pybus, Percy John
Weymouth, Viscount


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Raikas, Henry V. A. M.
Whiteslde, Borras Noel H.


Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Ramsay. Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Ker, J. Campbell
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Rankin, Robert
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Withers, Sir John James


Kimball, Lawrence
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Knox. Sir Alfred
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingslay


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Reid. James S. C. (Stirling)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Law, Sir Alfred
Reid, William Allan (Derby)



Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Leckie, J. A.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Sir Victor Warrender and Mr.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Womersley.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 1, line 13, to leave out the words "seventh day of December, nineteen
hundred and thirty-two," and to insert instead thereof the words:
first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-three."—[Mr. McEntee.]

6.0 p.m.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: On a, point of Order. May I submit that this Amendment, inasmuch as it will cause subsidies to be paid which are not intended under the Bill, will create an increased charge?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I think that the hon. and gallant Member overlooks the fact that under the existing law the Minister is empowered to grant these subsidies, and that this Amendment would really prolong the period of an existing charge, and would not therefore make a new charge.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, to leave out the words "seventh day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-two," and to insert instead thereof the words:
 first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-three.
The object of this Amendment is to extend the time during which the subsidy will be granted to local authorities which have housing schemes in course of preparation. I think that the Minister was rather harsh in his method of cutting off the subsidy. When local authorities have schemes in preparation they think, and they have a right to think, that they will receive some consideration, and, if they have submitted schemes in some preliminary form, they are entitled to expect, if it is proposed to abolish the subsidy, some consideration for those schemes which they have in hand and on which they have expended a considerable amount of money. The Minister brings in a Bill and says without warning: "I am going to cut off the subsidy right away." That is not the type of thing that local authorities have the right to expect.

Sir H. YOUNG: It may have escaped the hon. Member's attention that I have an Amendment down which deals with this point, namely, in page 1, line 14, at the end, to add the words:
Provided that if the Minister is satisfied that proposals for providing or promoting the provision of houses under those Acts had been prepared and were substantially ready to be submitted to him before the said seventh day of December, he may, subject to the approval of the Treasury, treat the proposals for the purposes of this Section as if they had been submitted to him before that date.

Mr. McENTEE: It has not escaped my attention. I have read it very carefully and have noticed the word "may." I have always been suspicious of that word in Acts of Parliament. If we say that a local authority "shall" do a thing, we know that it will be done, but, if we say that the local authority "may" do a thing, there is considerable doubt whether it will be done. My experience in these matters is that if a scheme would cost a local authority anything and if it happens to be a reactionary local authority, the word "may" is a means of enabling it to get out of a responsibility that Parliament very often desires it to carry out. I want the Minister to say that where housing schemes have been prepared within a reasonable time, the subsidy shall be paid, and I hope that, having made some concession to us in this matter, the right hon. Gentleman will go a little further and say that the subsidy "shall" be paid. A good deal depends on the officer in the Ministry of Health before whom a scheme comes. I have had experience in dealing with officials in that Department, and I find that all of them are very nice people, but, at the same time, one gets a consideration from some of them that one does not get from others. The question whether a subsidy shall be granted should not depend upon the whim or the will of a particular individual in the Department before whom a scheme happens to come. If the Minister will accept the Amendment and agree that a local authority shall have an extension of six months during which it can get the subsidy for schemes that were in preparation at the time of the introduction of the Bill, he will do something that is fair and that all local authorities and the Committee will appreciate.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: In supporting the Amendment, I wish to call the attention of the Minister to the unfortunate position in which many local authorities will be placed, and I will take Liverpool as a typical example. When the Minister announced his decision that the subsidy would cease on the 7th December, it had no regard to the liabilities which Liverpool and other local authorities were incurring in the housing schemes which were about to be carried out. For months preparatory work has been going
on in order to carry out a letter which we received from the Minister in the early part of January last year. That letter pointed out the necessity of housing at a cheap rental being provided in the city. We were able to make some arrangements, but we were not able to go forward with the plans until January of this year. Apart altogether from the political aspect of the question, Liverpool is anxious, as every other great centre is, for facilities to carry out the requirements of the Ministry and the obligations laid on the local authorities to make provision for houses. The Minister's Amendment would not meet our requirements, because it contains a reference to the approval of the Treasury and the word "may," with which I do not agree. I wish to see something more definite inserted in the Bill. Liverpool has already sent to the Minister plans of a scheme involving almost 5,000 houses. The drastic move to stop all subsidies places it and municipalities in every part of the country in an undignified position. All their work goes for nought.
It is remarkable that, while the Ministry of Health laid down this mandate without warning, the Scottish Office sent out a fortnight's warning notice. I know that Scottish Members as a rule want to get the best of everything, but England expects at least the same fair treatment with regard to housing. We hope that the Minister will meet us in regard to the obligations that we have undertaken so that we can have the opportunity of providing the cheap houses which he has asked us to provide. The abolition of the subsidy will make a difference of 4s. a week in the rent. We have bought the land, we have prepared the plans, and we have a demand for the houses, but we shall not be able to meet it without the subsidy because the rents, which would have been 7s. and Os. 8d. with the subsidy, will be 11s. and 10s. 8d. without. I am not sure what was in the mind of the Minister when he put his Amendment down; I am not sure of my own mind at times; and I would like to see it in black and white in the Bill if it is in his mind to grant the subsidy to local authorities which have got out plans. It is most essential that municipalities should have no further liabilities in regard to the schemes that are already in
hand. They are badly hit, particularly in the depressed areas.
I ask the Minister to put aside the question of national economy and to consider the responsibility that rests upon this Committee to see that justice is done to those local authorities which have got out plans for schemes. It is unfair to produce a Bill and say without warning that the Government have nothing to do with the obligations which local authorities have incurred through housing schemes and that it is not their responsibility. The Government have a great responsibility in housing which calls for the particular attention of every hon. Member. I am not seeking this concession in order to gain any party capital. Every Member for Liverpool who does not represent the party to which I belong will be bound to support such an Amendment as this. I am not speaking from the party point of view at all, although the Amendment meets my views as to the responsibility that falls on this House. Therefore, I have great pleasure in supporting this Amendment, and I hope that the Minister will accept it in order to do the right thing by the municipalities of the country.

6.15 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: I wish to say a word or two on this Amendment, although I recognise that the Amendment which is on the Paper in the name of the Minister will, if reasonably administered—and I have no reason to think it will not be—go a considerably way in the direction which the Amendment before us suggests, and may in some ways prove to be a better one, because I can see the inconvenience and difficulty of adopting this present Amendment. The county of Devon, with which I am connected, has been quoted as one in which good work has been done and is being done under the reconditioning Act, and that is true. We hope to get the county council to grant a further sum for additional work to be carried out, because we find that the more we do the more there is to be done. But I do not want it to be understood that because we are working that Act fairly well there is not a very considerable need of new houses which is not touched at all by reconditioning, and still less do I want it to be understood that the demand for new houses can in any way whatever be touched by private building.
In rural districts the operations of building societies are really unknown. Whatever they do in towns, building societies are not active in the rural parishes. The people there have never heard of them, and that is a fact. Therefore when we talk of private enterprise in connection with rural houses we mean the private enterprise of the ordinary builder building rural cottages, which have to be built in twos or fours. From inquiries I have made I find that taking into account the cost of land, roads and water supply, these cannot be built under £350 a house. To make a reasonable profit the builder will not let such a house under 8 per cent. on his outlay; and after making provision for the cost of repairs, the collection of the rent and the possibility that the house may be empty, and taking rates into account also, he will want a rent of 10s. 10d. a week, which is an absolutely laughable sum from the point of view of the people in the villages. As far as I can see, this Bill will stop dead the building of new houses in rural districts.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I rather think the right hon. Gentleman is addressing himself to an Amendment which has already been dealt with. We are now concerned simply with the question of the date.

Sir F. ACLAND: I bow to your Ruling, and will only say that I am very glad that the Minister has had second thoughts on his original proposal, and is at any rate willing to consider the question of allowing schemes which were substantially ready at a certain date to go forward. I join also with what has been said from the benches opposite in hoping that the word "may" will be really generously interpreted, and that we shall not find that a lot of these schemes are knocked on the head when they come forward.

6.20 p.m.

Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: I do not myself expect the Minister to accept this Amendment, because I feel that the real trouble does not arise over the date but over the stage which the preparations have reached at the date. There has to be some date, and the same trouble will exist whatever the date may be. I have been very much impressed with the care which the Minister has given to this
matter. Those of us who were present when he spoke on 7th February will agree that he recognised that the terms of the Bill were too cast-iron on the point of the preparations, and he undertook, in consultation with the Committee, to make them a little broader. That is the real issue, and I am only anxious that it should be appreciated when the Minister comes to speak. It is all very well to talk about making a rule for the whole country, but it must be remembered that different parts of the country have different methods. The case of Liverpool has been quoted by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan), and though he had something to say about the Scotland Division of which I do not approve, I agree otherwise with what he said. In Liverpool it has not been usual to apply for assistance until an accepted tender has been submitted for approval and there has been a statutory undertaking by the council, but I believe that in Manchester, Birmingham and in other places they follow a different procedure. The real issue is to meet the difficulties arising in practice in the different parts of the country. I do not challenge the policy of the Bill, and we are grateful to the Minister for having made good his promise by the Amendment which he has put down.

Mr. LOGAN: Does the hon. Member say that the Amendment of the Minister will suit Liverpool? I say distinctly that it will not.

Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: The hon. Member interrupted me before I had finished. I would point out that that Amendment has not yet been discussed. I say that I think the Minister realises the difficulty, and he has already promised an Amendment in consultation with the Committee. What he has to consider is the different methods prevailing in different towns rather than any particular date. I do not object to the date.

6.23 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: The right hon. Gentleman for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) succeeded, in the parlance of the Navy, in "neatly bracketing the target." He spoke about the last Amendment and then about the next Amendment, and I was hoping that his next shot would be on the target itself, but that did not come
about. The speech by which this Amendment was supported by the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) and his Seconder showed a complete misconception as to what the result of the Amendment would be. They told us they were under the impression that if it were carried it would exercise some compulsion upon the Minister to accept schemes. Of course, it would have no such effect at all. All that would occur would be that the Minister could make no contribution as subsidy for houses provided after a later date than the one provided in the Bill. It would leave his discretion totally unfettered. There is no intention on the part of the Government to alter the general state of the law regarding the conditions and terms under which these proposals are considered and either accepted or rejected. The only question is where we shall draw the line, and there, again, it appears to me that the Amendment defeats the purpose of its supporters. I have agreed that the date fixed in the Bill cuts the thread too sharply. What we need is reasonable elasticity. This Amendment would not provide that reasonable elasticity, but simply replace one sharp and arbitrary cut by another. It would not enable me as Minister to deal with the matter as I should desire and as I believe the Committee would desire.

Mr. LANSBURY: If our Amendment has no effect, how is yours effective?

Sir H. YOUNG: The effect of all three Amendments will be precisely the same as regards any compulsion on the Minister to accept proposals; he will retain the same discretion as the general law gives him. The only question is as to what elasticity there shall be. I suggest that the reasonable way to arrange this is not to insist on an arbitrary date, as the Bill does, and as the Amendment does, but to have regard to the state of development of the plans. I should call that taking account of the practical aspect of the matter. We do not want to encourage a lot of artificially stimulated plans. We want to make sure that if bona fide plans—and I use that word in a wide sense, without any derogatory meaning—are submitted which are in a reasonably advanced state they shall have consideration. That is the practical and elastic method adopted by the Amend-
ment to which I may not refer; but I suggest that the present Amendment will leave us only at as much disadvantage as does the Bill itself.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. HICKS: The reason the Labour party put down an Amendment to extend the period to July, 1933, was that we hoped it would give the Minister time to make effective alternative plans. We very much appreciate the decision of the Minister to go beyond the date of 7th December, and his statement that where plans are in a reasonably advanced and practical shape at that time he is willing to give them sympathetic consideration, hut we honestly believe, in view of the "economania" of the National Government, that the interpretation of the promise will not be as wide and as liberal as we should like. If the date were July, 1933, the Minister would have time to make other plans. We do not think that the gap which will be created by the sacrifice of all the machinery, built up over many years, for dealing with the housing problem can be effectively bridged by agreeing to accept plans that may be prepared, or partially prepared, at Christmas or January, or perhaps by the end of this month.
The machinery that was evolved for the purpose of dealing with house building was very effective, and we might say that it was the most effective machinery that has been evolved for that purpose in any part of the world. That machinery was constructed since the War, and all of it is to be dropped. Nothing tangible is to take its place. So far as we are aware, no official pronouncement has been made on the part of the building societies that they are committed to anything. They are not, so far as we are aware, pledged to do anything. Consequently, there will be a definite gap created by sacrificing the whole of the established organisation. We very much regret that the subsidy is to be abandoned altogether. The Ministry would be well advised to accept our proposal to take, at least six months in which to move and in which to be able to get something tangible from the building societies, who have not yet made any general declaration.
We cannot lightly regard the sacrificing of the machinery that has been
established. Over 2,000,000 houses have been built since the War, a most formidable proposition in housing which has been accomplished as the result of machinery evolved by the Ministry of Health, through municipal authorities, employers and organisations set up all over the country. All that is to be dropped. We are throwing ourselves into the pool of chance by saying that under the Bill provision will be made for building societies to advance up to 90 per cent. of the cost, and that the builders have to fill in the gap between 90 per cent. and 100 per cent.; but there is no guarantee. There has been no official announcement, and no one has challenged the building societies. Everything is left to chance, and the Minister should have the opportunity effectively to prepare something to take the place of that which he is now proposing to abandon. The 1st July is we think the earliest date that should be laid down in this Clause.

6.33 p.m.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: I entirely agree with what the Minister has said, but I would like to ask him why, under this Amendment, he requires the approval of the Treasury?

Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. and learned Member realises, of course, that the point he is discussing arises upon the next Amendment but one.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I agree, as a matter of order, but if I may be allowed—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman had better raise the point on the discussion of the Minister's Amendment.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I understood that we were discussing this question because the Minister had referred to his Amendment when dealing with the Amendment which is now before the Committee. It would influence the minds of some of us if this matter were clear up. I will be very brief if I may refer to this matter.

Sir H. YOUNG: Perhaps we might have a. wider discussion to include my Amendment. That would save the time of the Committee, and we should not have to deal with the same points over again when my Amendment turns up.

Mr. DENMAN: Hon. Members seem to me omitting the Amendment that lies in between the two which they are discussing. In that Amedment there is no reference to the Treasury and no reference to the date. It leaves the matter to the discretion of the Minister.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If it is the wish of hon. Members, I will take a discussion on the three Amendments, the one now before the Committee, the one in the name of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir S. Rosbotham), and the one in the name of the Minister. If that course is objected to, I will proceed with the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ormskirk, and in that case I think we had better discuss the points raised in the Minister's Amendment when we come to it. I am in the hands of the Committee, and I will take any course that is desired.

Mr. DENMAN: It may be found speedier to conduct the business in strict order, and to discuss the Minister's Amendment when it arises.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It may be the most convenient course if we dispose of the present Amendment and then raise any further points on the Minister's Amendment.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I would like to point out that we cannot effectively discuss our Amendment alone, because the right hon. Gentleman has suggested that his Amendment is the alternative to ours. It is clearly open to us to argue that our Amendment is a much better way of meeting the point that the right hon. Gentleman meets in his Amendment. It would be therefore much better if we could discuss them together.

Mr. McENTEE: I should very much like to have said a word or two on the Minister's Amendment when I was speaking, but I have felt that I was precluded from doing so because it would have been out of order.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am in the hands of the Committee, but it seems to me that it will be better on the whole to take all the discussion on this Amendment. If hon. Members object, it is not for me to overrule them.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Is it not possible to deal with: the dates raised in this Amendment and on the Minister's
Amendment, and to leave out entirely the other Amendment which comes in the middle, the subject of which is as to whether the Minister may determine the date? Then we could deal with the point as to whether the Minister should have a discretion in regard to the date. They are two separate propositions.

Mr. DENMAN: It seems to be the general will of the Committee to have a general Debate, and I therefore withdraw my objection.

Mr. LANSBURY: I think that we should be able to vote on each Amendment, even if we discussed them together.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Obviously that must rest with the hon. Member in charge of the Amendment. If that hon. Member desires a vote, he will move for the matter to be decided upon forthwith.

6.38 p.m.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: The principle to be decided and the whole object of the proposal which we are now discussing is, as I understand it, to take care that those local authorities who have gone to the expense and trouble of preparing their plans, and who have got everything almost ready for submission to the Minister by the 7th December, should still be able to obtain the subsidy under the Act that we are altering by this Bill. The question is whether those plans and the steps that have been taken are such as make it fair and just that the authorities should go on under the old Act and should not be subject to the limitations provided by the Bill, which would mean that they have no subsidy. It is not affected by the amount of money which is involved. I suggest to the Minister that it is obviously a question for him and his Department to decide. He is in constant communication with the local authorities. The matter depends, as I read the Bill, on whether the plans under the old Act have been so far prepared and schemes so far adopted that it would be unfair to cut them off short on 7th December and to render all the work that has been done wasted, subject to the provisions of this Bill. I understand that some question has been raised with the Minister by the Corporation of Liver-
pool, but there is no reason whatever to bring the Treasury in here, because it is a matter that ought to be left to the Minister himself. If the Corporation of Liverpool has the slightest trouble or anxiety because the steps that they have taken have gone to such a point, it is the Minister himself who will have to deal with that situation.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN: After the speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) it is advisable that I should bring into the picture the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir S. Rosbotham) and myself and other hon. Members, because that Amendment does precisely what the hon. and learned Member wants. The Amendment is to add at the end of the Clause the words:
 save in such cases as the Minister may determine.
It leaves the Minister as much discretion as he now possesses in the matter of raising money and of approving loans for housing, and it avoids the specific reference to the Treasury to which the hon. and learned Member objects. It is clear that the argument in favour of the principle of our Amendment is accepted in all quarters of the Committee. The idea that the axe should fall suddenly and sharply, to withdraw the subsidy from any house in respect of which proposals had not been submitted by 7th December, is repudiated. There must be elasticity. Submission of a proposal is not a good criterion of whether houses should or should not receive the subsidy. Our Amendment proposes, in a single sentence, the recognition of the fact that these proposals will be in the very last stage of incubation. Some will be nearly coming out, and some will hardly have been put into the incubator. We wish to leave the Minister complete discretion to be able to examine the egg and if it is fertile, and if he sees that it is shortly going to hatch out, we ask him to regard it as a chick.

6.43 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: We have heard a very specious speech from the Minister and one that was very persuasive. The Minister almost persuaded the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) that if his Amendment were carried it would
not make very much difference to that of the Minister himself. The hon. Member is too old a bird to be caught with that. He was very nearly caught by it, but before he had finished his speech he had wriggled out of it. The Committee ought to realise this fundamental difference: I want the Acts of Parliament from 1923 to 1924 to operate for another six months, whereas the Minister wants to bring them to an end and take them off the Statute Book for all practical purposes, and to bring in the provisions of Clause 2. I agree with the hon. Member for East Woolwich that that is too sudden a change. This is a great new experiment which I hope is going to be a success. I hope that the building societies will function, and that private enterprise will be effective.
Inevitably, new organisations like those proposed in the Bill, and new methods and new ideas cannot come into operation right now. It must take at least six or nine months. The builders have to get the financial assistance arranged, they have to buy the land, to lay out the reads, and to make arrangements about sewerage and so on. Anyone with experience of housing development knows that it is necessary to look a long way ahead; that, indeed, is the real problem of housing, and it takes time. You cannot turn out houses like sausages out of a machine; it means long thought-out plans. Local authorities have now built up a complete organisation, with architects, valuers and engineers. They possess knowledge and information, and can go right on to build houses. This Amendment proposes that the old machine should continue operating for six months, so as to give time for the new experiment devised by the right hon. Gentleman to mature. I am informed that only three building societies have agreed to this proposal. The great bulk of them are still hesitating on the brink; they are not yet persuaded; and there is a real danger in an interregnum between the old order and the new. Instead of a great push in house building such as the Minister wants, it may mean, and I think it will mean, a complete hold-up, with local authorities stopped, and private builders and building societies still thinking out plans.
I think that the Amendment is a reasonable one. Of course, the Minister has always the power to veto any scheme
that may be unsound. He has had that power ever since the Act of 1923. We want the machinery of the Acts of 1923 and 1924 to go on for another six months. It may be said, and with some reason, that local authorities would take advantage of this to push forward a great number of schemes and get them through within the next six months. I hope they will, because houses are required. This is a most critical moment as regards unemployment. Money is cheap, materials are cheap, building costs are low, and it would be a great thing if during the next six months the Minister could say to local authorities all over the country: "You have six months more in which to get on with your business, and then you will disappear." I think that this is a sensible Amendment, which would meet a good deal of the opposition of all those good people throughout the country who are terribly depressed and upset at this complete change of policy. I am in favour of the Amendment, and shall certainly vote for it.

6.48 p.m.

Major HILLS: I think I shall be in order now in discussing the Minister's Amendment as well as that which has been moved by the hon. Member opposite. The Minister's Amendment, I apprehend, does two things. It gives to the Minister a discretion to admit for subsidy schemes which were substantially ready to be submitted before the 7th December last, and I take it that the object of that is twofold. It enables the Minister to meet hard cases, and there certainly will be some hard cases—we have heard of them already; and, further, to tide over the transition period between the old system and the new. The Minister may have to bring in more cases under the old system, in order that there may be no gap between the old system ceasing and the new system starting. These are both really valuable powers, and they are given to the Minister by means of a discretion. He may treat these proposals as though they had been submitted before 7th December. But there is a very important qualification—it is to be subject to the approval of the Treasury. I understand the giving of a discretion to the Minister, and I understand a limitation by the Treasury, but I do not quite see how these two are going to work together.
This is a partnership, and I want to know whether the Minister is the predominant partner, or the Treasury. I can conceive of the imposition of a limitation for several different reasons.
The Treasury may say that they will only approve of a certain number of houses—a quite conceivable limitation; or, more probably, the Treasury may say that they will only approve of a certain financial commitment, a certain definite sum. These are important considerations. The Minister's responsibility, however, is wider than that. He has to consider, as I have said, the necessity of easing the transition stage, and he may have to consider the needs of the locality and the necessity for housing in certain places. I should like to know on what terms the Treasury are to approve or disapprove of a scheme. If we have the Minister there, we can tell more or less. We know him, and, if he does not approve, we can ask him why. But the Treasury is an impersonal body, and its consent is given or refused away from the House of Commons. That would mean the putting of a bar upon the Minister's discretion which might not be for the benefit of housing.
We all admit the necessity of economy, but, at the same time, I think the Committee ought to bear in mind the big change that we are making here, and the great importance of seeing that there is no break in the continuity, and also of seeing that special cases are met, and met not entirely upon the financial obligations involved. We all know that certain parts of the country are more distressed than others, that certain parts are more crowded than others; and I should like to see the Minister the judge in such circumstances. I believe that a certain amount of public expenditure is not only justifiable now, but beneficial. I believe that we have passed out of the era of extreme economy and cutting down everything, and that it is being generally recognised that beneficial expenditure, even though it does not produce a complete financial return, is of advantage to the country. I think that for that reason it is extremely important that we should know where we stand in this matter. Are we to be held up entirely upon financial considerations, or is the Minister confident that the great powers of persuasion which he exercises to the full in the
House of Commons will be equally effective when exercised on the Treasury?

6.54 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I do not feel that the Minister, in the remarks that he addressed to the Committee a few minutes ago, quite did justice to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. I think that a very strong case can be made out for the Amendment, and that, on merits, it deserves the support of the Committee to an even greater degree than the suggestion of the Minister himself. The right hon. Gentleman wishes to fix a certain date in December, 1932, as the appointed day, if I may call it. We wish to fix a date in July, 1933. What are the respective merits of the two dates? I think it is unfair to many local authorities to fix upon December, 1932. A great crisis occurred in this country in 1931, and a great wave of economy spread throughout the land. Great pressure was brought to bear upon local authorities to cut down their activities, and it is fair to assume that, certainly for a long time during 1932, local authorities presumed that it was not very much worth while to discuss plans for building new houses, and probably, therefore, they did not press on with that side of their activities to the degree that they otherwise might. If, therefore, the Minister insists upon fixing the date in December, 1932, it is fair to assume that a comparatively small number of local authorities could argue that their plans were sufficiently advanced to merit the Minister's approval. We suggest, therefore, that, if the date were changed from December, 1932, to July, 1933, it would give to local authorities who would like to be included within this provision a much better chance of being included than if the original date is adhered to.
I recall that in 1929 the then Labour Government desired to encourage local authorities to build a number of schools within a certain period, and their standard was that, so long as the work was contractually undertaken between certain dates, the Treasury was prepared to make an additional credit grant. That may not he possible in this ease, but it seems to me that the Minister ought to give a chance to authorities which were prevented by the period of crisis from going ahead with their plans, to get in before the door is finally closed. What
is the Minister's alternative?His offer applies to cases in which the plans were substantially ready—I think that those are the words. But what does "substantially ready" mean? It is loose phraseology, to say the least. I dare say the Minister will apply it in as fair and just and impartial a way as he can, but, however just and impartial he may be, he will inevitably create a great deal of disappointment, and there may be some unkind reflections upon the measure of discretion which he has exercised. If, however, he fixes a definite date six months from now, no one will have a right to complain, because everyone will know that they must be ready by a certain date in July, and that, if they are not in "on the ground floor," to use a common expression, before then, that will be their fault, and they will not be able to blame the Minister for it.
I was glad to hear the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) and the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) point out that even the Minister is going to be circumscribed under the terms of his own Amendment; he is not to be master in his own house. I can understand that the Government may desire to take control of the amount of money to be spent, but nowadays we hear too frequently the cry that everything must be subject to theipse dixitof the Treasury, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has given expression to a growing opinion in the House that the time for economy in cutting down socially desirable work of this sort has come to an end. The dead hand of the Treasury ought to be removed. If, therefore, we can put in our date, large numbers of plans will flow in to the right hon. Gentleman. But even if there are large numbers of plans, he will still have, under the old law, the right to withhold the sanction of any plans which do not meet with his approval. There are merits attached to our proposal which the right hon. Gentleman has overlooked, and I beg him to reconsider our Amendment.

7.2 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: It is necessary, when we are discussing the third Amendment, that I should add a word regarding the other two Amendments. I do not want to repeat the argument on the subject of the Amendment we are voting upon first.
That Amendment has the effect that the only people it would help would be those who were artificially stimulated at the last moment, and who pushed their affairs along to get them through. Let me pass to the next Amendment. That Amendment, as far as its practical working and intentions are concerned, is identical with my Amendment. The reason why I ask the Committee not to accept this Amendment is that it is really too vague in its terms. It is a novel experience for a Minister to stand at this Box anti; protest against too large powers being conferred upon him, but by this Amendment I should be promoting what is not good legislation.
When power is conferred upon a Minister some definition must be given by the Act as to policy, or the circumstances, under which that power is to be exercised. I do not find these requisite directions in this Amendment. These directions are given in the Amendment I propose to the House which sets out, the Committee will remember, that if the Minister is satisfied that proposals for providing, or promoting, the provision of houses under the Acts in question have been prepared, and were substantially ready to be submitted to him before 7th December, he may, subject to the approval of the Treasury, treat the proposals for the purposes of this Section as if they had been submitted to him before that date. The final words would give the Minister the necessary instructions from the House of Commons that he is to give consideration to schemes which "had been prepared and were substantially ready." The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last claimed that these terms were too vague or too wide. The intention is that they should be wide.
I think the Minister should be subject to some direction, but he should have wide discretion as to the acceptance of plans which are prepared and substantially ready, and commend themselves to him on general grounds. I do not hesitate not only to admit, but to claim, that the words are quite wide. The point is that we must put the matter in this form, and not in the more arbitrary form proposed by the other Amendment. This is really doing something to meet the class we want to consider. The other Amendment is arbitrary, and not co-extensive with that class. We
want to consider the matter on the merits. I come to the point taken by my hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills). I confess to some surprise at this attracting any comment. The policy which this Committee is asked to approve is that applications, which recommend themselves, shall be accepted and that is a policy which the Minister will be authorised to carry out. I am asked who is to be the predominant partner. I have no hesitation in saying that, with regard to housing policy, the Minister will be the predominant partner and will have the decision as to the applications to be accepted.
It is quite usual to insert these words in Acts of Parliament where a single non-recurrent financial charge is in question. It is put in because the powers granted here—the powers which I deliberately ask—are so wide that if abused by a Minister—one must consider possibilities, not probabilities, in Acts of Parliament—if they were abused by me, or some more fortunate successor, they might confront the Treasury with an embarrassing position. That is always a feature of powers of this sort granted for single non-recurrent transactions. I think it is not only usual but is really wise and sensible, to recognise the presence of the factors which are necessary for decisions, and the financial factor is represented by the Treasury. That is all that the insertion of these words means, and, in the circumstances, I do not think they need cause any undue apprehension to the minds of hon. Members. I think at this juncture the Committee might come to a decision on the Amendment.

7.10 p.m.

Major MILNER: I do not think the Committee will be satisfied with the Minister's further explanations. On every side of the Committee there is opposition to the Minister's Amendment. I do not think that, so far, mention has been made of there being considerable opposition outside the House from a very influential quarter, the Association of Municipal Corporations. Incidentally, the electors of Rotherham have expressed in no uncertain voice their view.

Sir H. YOUNG: Will the hon. and gallant Member allow me to ask him to
what expression of opinion of the Association of Municipal Corporations he refers?

Major MILNER: The Association of Municipal Corporations, or the housing committee of that Association, saw the right hon. Gentleman on 2nd February and informed him that they viewed with very grave alarm the suggestion made in the Bill now before the Committee, namely, that the subsidy should be cut out immediately. They pointed out that only 12 months ago the right hon. Gentleman requested members of that Association to do what they could to remove the very serious and urgent need for the provision of small houses. He circularised the municipalities to that effect and now, within 12 months, he is coming along to them again before they are able to tackle the problem. He is now proposing that the subsidy should be cut clean away. So far as they can ascertain, from the great knowledge they possess, they cannot see any possibility, under the proposals now made, of providing houses to let at anything like the present rental, so the problem is to remain unchanged.

Sir H. YOUNG: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member wishes to mislead the Committee, but the opinion of the Association of Municipal Corporations was expressed before my present Amendment was proposed.

Major MILNER: I have not quite finished. I hold in my hand a letter from the Association of Municipal Corporations, dated since the Minister's Amendment was put on the Paper, and they express the hope that I may see my way to object to the present Amendment which is before the Committee. Is the Minister content with what I said, namely, that the Association of Municipal Corporations is, in effect, objecting not only to the original proposals to stop the subsidy, but also to the present proposals?

Sir H. YOUNG: I did not know of the later document which the hon. and gallant Member has, nor has he read it to the Committee. I have no information of the fact that the Association objects to the form of the present Amendment.

Major MILNER: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will do me the justice of
believing that I have such a letter in my hand, which I shall be most happy to show him.

HON. MEMBERS: What is the date?

Major MILNER: The 25th February. It is a letter which I received this morning, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, who is a vice-president of the association, also received one.

Mr. WOMERSLEY (Lord of the Treasury): Why do you not read the letter out?

Major MILNER: Why do you not bring your copy out and hand it to the Minister? The position is that the influential body, to which I have referred, not only take exception to the right hon. Gentleman's first proposals, but have stated that in their view—I will not put it quite so strongly as to say the right hon. Gentleman has not quite played the game. But he did request them to provide certain further houses, and then he comes forward with this proposal, which was, at first, to stop this subsidy altogether. He now comes forward with a further proposal in which the matter is left entirely to his discretion, subject to the approval of the Treasury. What can the object of that be? The inclusion of these words means something. I think it is a decision, by the use of these words, to limit the consideration of proposals which municipalities might put forward now. In these circumstances, I do not think the Committee should, without some more definite assurance from the right hon. Gentleman, pass this Amendment.
I hope the Committee will approve of the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend which suggests that a date should be fixed in July, 1933. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, and the Parliamentary Secretary, that on 15th December the Parliamentary Secretary said that, in this matter, obviously some date had to be fixed. The Parliamentary Secretary added on that occasion that when we came to the Committee stage we would see whether a date could not be fixed in order to include genuine applications and exclude spurious ones. It was not then suggested that the matter should be one for the discretion of the right hon. Gentleman, either with or without the
approval of the Treasury. It was in pursuance of that statement, made I am sure with the approval, if not in the actual presence of, the Minister, that my hon. Friends put down their proposal in which they inserted a date, and a very reasonable date, not six months ahead. It is going to take quite a considerable time to prepare the necessary technical work to enable the local authorities to go on with their building.
It has been said that only three building societies have indicated their intention of participating in the scheme. In the very nature of things, they are only likely to invest their surplus funds in schemes under this Bill. If they can lend funds to their occupiers or in other directions at 5¼ per cent., they are not likely to lend under the Government scheme, though, no doubt, they will do what they can to assist as far as their surplus funds are concerned. I hope the Committee, in view of the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary on 15th December, will pass the Amendment, and will pay due regard to the views of such an important body as the Association of Municipal Corporations in taking exception to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, because it is clearly directed to limiting the number of proposals that are likely to be considered by him.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. ATKINSON: I cannot understand anyone raising any objection to the Minister's Amendment, and I do not want to say anything about that, but the earlier Amendments deserve a little more sympathetic consideration, particularly the second one, which I prefer. I think it will take quite a considerable time to get the scheme of Clause 2 in operation. I find that local builders are very averse from building to let. They understand that it implies some restriction on their right to sell for some unknown period. They are busy building for the purpose of selling, and they tell me they are terrified at the cost of road making. They say it is too expensive to buy land for building small houses on roads that are already made and, if the roads are not made, the local authority can come along at any moment and make them in an expensive way. They say that as long as that burden has to be faced there will be, in their view, an insuperable barrier to very much use being made of Clause 2 by local builders. It seems to
me that more time than is contemplated will be wanted to get that Clause into operation. The builders will have to be got together, to be brought in touch with the building societies and to meet the chairman of the building committee of local authorities to indicate the sort of programme the local authorities would have undertaken if they had the power, and every inducement will have to be brought to bear upon them to put the scheme into operation. I cannot help

feeling that there ought to be some discretion with the Minister far beyond that in his own Amendment, giving him power, without limitation as to date, to approve schemes under the old system where he finds that builders cannot be induced to put Clause 2 in operation.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided. Ayes, 247; Noes, 50.

Division No. 55.]
AYES.
[7.22 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Drewe, Cedric
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Duckworth, George A. V.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Albery, Irving James
Duggan, Hubert John
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mabane, William


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Dunglass, Lord
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Applln, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Atholl, Duchess of
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Atkinson, Cyril
Ersklne, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
McKeag, William


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Everard, W. Lindsay
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Balniel, Lord
Fade, Sir Bertram G.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Fielden, Edward Brocklchurst
Magnay, Thomas


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Maitland, Adam


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Forestler-Walker, Sir Leolin
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Bernays, Robert
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mayhew. Lieut.-Colonel John


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Ganzonl, Sir John
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Milne, Charles


Blindell, James
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd k Chisw'k)


Borodale, Viscount
Goff. Sir Park
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Boulton, W. W.
Goldle, Noel B.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford. N.)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Greene, William P. C.
Morrison, William Shepherd


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Grimston, R. V.
Moss, Captain H. J.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Guy. J. C. Morrison
Nail, Sir Joseph


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Hales, Harold K.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Burnett, John George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nunn, William


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hartland, George A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pearson, William G.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Peat, Charles U.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Percy, Lord Eustace


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Petherick, M.


Cayzer, Maj, sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bllston)


Chapman, CoT.R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Hopklnson, Austin
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hornby, Frank
Potter, John


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Horobin, Ian M.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Christie, James Archibald
Horsbrugh, Florence
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Clarry, Reginald George
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Pybus, Percy John


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. O.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Ker, J. Campbell
Ratcliffe. Arthur


Conant, R. J. E.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cook, Thomas A.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Cooke, Douglas
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Law, Sir Alfred
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Cranborne, Viscount
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Croom-Johnson, R. p.
Lees-Jones, John
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Crossley, A. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Robinson, John Roland


Dalkeith, Earl of
Levy, Thomas
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Lewis, Oswald
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Liddall, Walter S.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Denville, Alfred
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunllffe-
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Dickie, John P.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Llverp'l)


Donner, P. W.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Salmon, Sir Isldore
Somervllie, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Wallace, John (Dunfermilne)


Salt, Edward W.
Soper, Richard
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Savery, Samuel Servington
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Scone, Lord
Strauss, Edward A.
Weymouth, Viscount


Selley, Harry R.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwoll)
Sutcliffe, Harold
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Templeton, William P.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Withers, Sir John James


Skelton, Archibald Noel
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Slater, John
Thorp, Linton Theodore
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-ln-F.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of



Smith, Louis w. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Train, John
Captain Austin Hudson and Mr. Womersley.


Smith-Carington, Neville w.
Turton, Robert Hugh



Somervllie, Annesley A (Windsor)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon



NOES.


Adams. D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Mlddlesbro', W.)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grithffis, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Milner, Major James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Harris, Sir Percy
Owen, Major Goronwy


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hicks, Ernest George
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Janner, Barnett
Price, Gabriel


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McEntee, Valentine L.



George. Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. D. Graham.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

Amendment made: In page 1, line 14, at the end, add the words:
 Provided that if the Minister is satisfied that proposals for providing or promoting the provision of houses under those Acts had been prepared and were substantially ready to be submitted to him before the said seventh day of December, he may, subject to the approval of the Treasury, treat the proposals for the purposes of this Section as if they had been submitted to him before that date."—[Sir H. Young.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

7.32 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: Before we part with the Clause there are one or two comments I wish to make. The Clause leaves us with an entirely new situation in regard to the housing of the working classes. The housing of the working classes has now, with the exception to which I will refer in a moment, become a question almost entirely for private enterprise. The Minister, both on the Second Reading Debate and in the Debate on the Financial Resolution, seemed to be pretty confident that the new situation which the Bill would
create would be one in which private enterprise would be able adequately and cheaply to meet the needs of the working classes for houses. His refusal to accept the Amendment which we had put upon the Paper to continue subsidies in connection with rural housing led him to make a statement with regard to the policy of the Government on that particular matter. He told the Committee that the Government are now prepared to leave the matter entirely to the housing (Rural Workers) Act, and to what can be done for rural housing under the Act of 1930.
The right hon. Gentleman used two rather curious arguments in this connection. The argument he used about declining populations in the countryside was a very curious one to come from one of the leading Ministers of the National Government. I should have thought that the policy of the Government ought to have been a co-ordinated policy in all spheres of Government activity. I should have thought that the housing policy, either for urban housing or rural housing, would have fitted in with the general policy of the Government in regard to trade, industry and agriculture.
We have been told that the policy which is being pursued by the Government in regard to agriculture will bring us an agricultural revival and that it will mean that more people will be settled in the countryside. It seems, at any rate, that the Minister of Health and the Department which deals with the question of housing have very little faith in the general policy of His Majesty's Government in connection with agriculture, because the Minister of Health this afternoon, in refusing an Amendment to Clause 1 which would have continued the subsidy to houses erected in agricultural parishes, stressed the fact, that apparently in his view there would be less need for houses in the countryside owing to declining population.
He went on to use another argument, saying that houses built in rural areas by means of subsidies were not houses which agricultural labourers could afford to occupy. That argument was very effectively demolished by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Johnstone), and I do not propose to say any more about it. Obviously, the cessation of subsidies, particularly in connection with rural housing, leaves the agricultural labourer and the rural worker generally in a position in which they are not likely to have, in any future which I can visualise, any improvement in their housing conditions. I cannot for a single moment see the likelihood of private enterprise coming along and erecting houses in the countryside at rents which agricultural labourers and rural workers will be able to pay. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont), in the course of the discussion this afternoon, said that the difference between us was primary, that he and those hon. Members who thought as he did believed that the question of housing the working classes was a matter for private enterprise, while we who occupy these benches thought that it was a social obligation—he did not actually use the words "social obligation"—on the part of the country, if the thing was not being done satisfactorily in other ways, to see to it that people who lived, not only in the countryside, but in the towns and the cities, were properly and adequately housed.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I know that the hon. Member does not wish to misrepre-
sent me, but what I actually said was that we believed that it was primarily 'a matter for private enterprise only to be assisted when necessary by the State, and that admits the social obligation on the public as a whole. But we suggest that it is better carried out by private enterprise than by the State, and that is where we differ.

Mr. BROWN: The only thing I wish to say on the further explanation which the hon. Member has given, and which I entirely accept, is that we on these benches do not think that the conditions are such that the houses, which, as everybody agrees, are urgently needed, are likely to be provided by private enterprise, and because we do not think that that situation exists we strenuously oppose the proposals put before us in this particular Clause. That is why I am making these comments before the Committee finally pass from the Clause. Obviously, only the future can decide the issue between us, but there is nothing in past experience, as far as housing in this country is concerned, which leads us to believe that private enterprise will ever adequately and decently house the workers in the countryside. There is nothing in past experience which leads us to that conclusion. If by some miracle a complete change takes place And private enterprise provides the dwellings which are necessary in rural England, the hon. Member will, I suppose, at some future date, have an opportunity of chastising us for the attitude which we 'are taking up on this occasion. But if, on the other hand, private enterprise fails to fulfil what many hon. Members opposite are obviously expecting it to fulfil in the distant future, the emphasis we put this afternoon upon the question of the social obligation upon the community to 'attend to the matter if no one else does, will amply be justified by the events as we see them in the days that lie ahead.
The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), in opposing one of the Amendments to the Clause, said that he hoped the Minister would resist the Amendment, because he saw in it some kind of Socialist action designed to undermine entirely the attitude which His Majesty's Government are now taking up in regard to the question of housing. He went on to argue, particularly in connection with the countryside, that if there came a general restoration
of prosperity, which is something, I presume, at which His Majesty's Government are aiming in their general policy, then, in. some mysterious fashion, out of that general prosperity you would get the provision of the houses which the working-classes in rural England need so badly. In other words, he was saying that if the farmer and the tradesmen prosper, and generally prosperous conditions come about, then houses will be provided. That is the sort of argument he used, and, when you listen to arguments like that, you cannot help but remember that that has not happened in the past. There have been many prosperous periods in British history and many periods when business has been thriving and farmers and all kinds of undertakings have been doing well, but in such circumstances were the working-classes of this country housed under satisfactory conditions? If under prosperous conditions in the past that had actually happened, we should have had very little complaint to bring before the Committee to-day. It does not seem to us who sit on these Benches that when you have, by passing this Clause, abolished subsidies in connection with the provision of houses for the working-classes, except in the case of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, where there is slight assistance, and in the case of the Act of 1930, you are likely to produce conditions which will effectively and definitely house the working-classes, and consequently we shall have no option on this occasion but, both by word and vote, to oppose this Clause.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I wish to support what has been said by my hon. Friend against Clause 1. It is the crux of the whole Bill and takes away all subsidies with the exception of the slum clearance subsidy. I have spoken to a good many of my friends who know more about housing than I do and are concerned with municipalities and have spent a good deal of time in endeavouring to provide for the needs of the working-classes. They looked forward to continuing providing that kind of house, but to their consternation they now find that the National Government, which I term the Tory Government, are reverting to their long established ideas of private enterprise. Behind this Bill lies the establishment once more of private enterprise. With the
knowledge that those people have had of private enterprise in the building of houses and what it has meant, they feel that no good can come from the Government's proposal. For a long time private enterprise has failed to provide adequate housing accommodation for the people and because it failed, the Government had to step in and try to do something. The people of my class, realise what it means. The class to which I belong have had the sad experience of not being able to get houses. Those of us who have been able to get houses have not been able to forget what has happened to our poor brethren who have not been able to get housing accommodation. Constant appeals have been made to us to assist them to get houses, and finally the Government had to give way to pressure and to grant subsidies.
The housing needs are not being satisfied. Wherever one goes there is a shortage of house's, and it is because of that fact that we are so keenly anxious that the House of Commons should not attempt to stop building by means of subsidies. If the Government do stop the subsidies, we believe that we shall go back to the position that existed when subsidies had to be given originally. The Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary say that private enterprise can meet the needs. Candidly, I do not think it can, and it is because of that fear that we are so much opposed to the Bill. Because of our knowledge of what has taken place in the past, we hope that the House of Commons will not place the country in the power of private enterprise once more. If they do, it will mean once again a fight for houses. The owners of houses will be able to extort from the people more than they ought to pay, and they will do that by various means. Because of the tragedy of the shortage of houses I do hope that we shall be able to prevail upon the Government not to trust themselves to private enterprise again.
If at any time later they can satisfy me or any of my friends that the housing shortage has been met and that times have become normal, we might agree with them, but wherever one goes, or to whatever public body one speaks, one hears of the prevailing shortage. I have here a cutting from a newspaper of a conference on housing which was held at Manchester in January of this year, by the Industrial
and Social Order Council of the Society of Friends. That conference passed the following minute:
 In view of the very acute problem of overcrowding and the serious housing shortage, we believe that it would be a disastrous step to abolish all ordinary municipal housing development and to leave it to the uncertainty of private enterprise to meet this great need, which might so easily be exploited for private profit.
It is because of the fear of what might happen that we are opposing Clause 1. If we can defeat Clause 1, we shall be well satisfied with our work to-night. Looking at the House at the present moment it is hardly fair that there should be recorded in the Division Lobby, when the vote is taken, probably the names of 300 Members against us, although there are not more than 50 Members in the House. I do not think it is right that hon. Members should crowd into the Lobby to support the Government unless they fully realise what the trend of the discussion has been. It may be that we can put forward nothing fresh in our arguments and that we are saying what has been said before, but it is not fair to the House of Commons that on an important matter like this the House should not be crowded by hon. Members listening to the discussion on the merits of the case.

Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: Will the hon. Member count how many there are on his own side I You are seven, I think.

Mr. TINKER: Yes. Probably the hon. Member has a right to point to my side, but may I say that these benches have been fairly full this afternoon and that my hon. Friends have to go out to procure some refreshment to stimulate them to carry on the Debate 4 We have to go in relays, because there is only a mere handful of us.

Sir S. CHAPMAN: Our friends have to do that, also.

Mr. TINKER: The hon. Member's friends are more numerous than we are. Surely, they could provide more representatives here in order to keep things going. We are certainly entitled to a better assembly than we get on these occasions. It really gives the spectators the idea that we pay little attention to the business of the House of Commons. This is a matter of great importance to
the working classes, and I hope that we shall be able to persuade the Committee not to pass Clause 1.

7.51 p.m.

Major PROCTER: One would have more regard for the sincerity of the Labour Opposition in regard to the question of subsidising houses if they would help in the matter of restricting somewhat the lines of demarcation which exist in the various trades concerned in the building of houses. When municipalities or Governments engage in the building of houses for the working classes it would appear as if those who are engaged in the building industry, both masters and men, regard the municipality or the Government as a milch cow from which they can extract everything possible for the benefit of profit on the one hand and the highest trade union rates of pay and conditions on the other. If Labour were sincere in this matter of houses it would be easy to do something useful by reducing the harshness, the fine lines which are drawn between one trade union and another. It was my lot at one time to live in a municipal house that was built under the grandiose scheme of Dr. Addison. It was supposed to be a working-class house, and it cost £1,200 to erect. When I got into that house the gas was not on. When the gas was turned on, it was found that the workmen had nailed the skirting board and the picture rails to the gas pipes, with the result that something had to be done about it. I went to the foreman on this large municipal scheme, and he said: "That is quite right. I will send the plumber round, right away." The plumber came and knocked off the picture rail and the skirting board, and wiped the joints. He left the picture rail on the floor. I said to him: "What about this wood I "He replied:" Oh, I cannot touch that. That is a joiner's work." Next day a joiner and his boy came along and they put up the picture rail and the skirting board again. I then said: "The backyard gate is an inch too long and will not shut." The joiner replied: "Oh, I cannot touch that. It is an outside joiner's job." I found when I talked to the men that they were only allowed to place so much wallpaper per day. have respect for trade unions. In fact, I am a member of one myself. [HON.
MEMBERS: "Oh."] Why should I not be? I served my apprenticeship as an engineer.

Mr. C. BROWN: Wilt the hon. Member tell me if a barrister would do a solicitor's job?

Major PROCTER: I am not arguing that point, but if barristers and solicitors claimed to be the friends of the working classes and refused to do what I am asking trade unionists to do, the hon. Member would have some cause for blame. Barristers and solicitors do not talk with tears in their voices of their interest in the working classes, and at the same time refuse to do things necessary for their best interests. In regard to the building of houses for the working classes by private enterprise, without a subsidy, I believe that we shall have something of the variety in the building of houses which we see at Port Sunlight. When subsidised houses are built by a municipality or under a Government, the Government or the municipality can only think in the terms of the mass. When Governments think of clothing, for instance, they think of it in terms of uniform, and when municipalities or Governments think of houses you have houses that are fit for jockeys to live in, all built to a standard type and subject to certain regulations. The subsidised houses built by municipalities will be slums 20 or 30 years from now. I hope that, at least, those Labour Members who are leaders of trades unions will be sincere in their utterances and will get the workers not to exploit the workers who want houses, and that they will endeavour as far as possible to assist in the building of houses that are worth while for the working classes of this country. In so far as rural areas are concerned, seeing that sooner or later we shall have people being settled on the land, cultivating a few acres and thereby providing a solution for one part of the unemployment problem, the Government might consider putting up in those wide open spaces houses built of wood, so that when a, man gets on a little and makes his holding pay, the 'house might be replaced with a more permanent structure, and the portable wooden building might be moved to some other place.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the Question, "That the
Clause, as amended, stand part," involves the whole question of Government building policy. We are limited to the question as to whether or not subsidies are to stop.

Major PROCTER: I hope that private enterprise may regard this matter in the light in which I have put it and that we may have, as I believe we shall have under this scheme, a great deal of property being erected, so that the working classes, people looking for homes, may find homes which are worthy of them and at a rent they can pay.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am tempted to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Procter) in his attack on trade unions. If there is one section of the community which has a grumble against the Government under this Clause it is the employers and workmen in the building industry. In 1924 the Labour Government made an attempt to face the problem of housing as it existed at that time. There was a tremendous scarcity of houses, a shortage in building trade labour, and it was said that the industry was not organising itself. An appeal was made to all the parties concerned to try and get on with the provision of houses, and in response to that appeal the four parties concerned, the State, local authorities, the employers and the workmen, came to an agreement with the then Minister of Health to carry on for a period of 15 years. The building trade workers were given to understand that if they would lessen their restrictions the agreement would be made. In those circumstances the building trade agreed to lessen their restrictions. The number of boys allowed to become apprentices was increased and in addition men who had not properly served their time were allowed to rank as properly qualified masons.
The employers also have a grumble, because they planned their capital development on a 15-year agreement. To the credit of the building trade it must be pointed out that they produced houses under this scheme at a faster rate than ever before. Yesterday we heard a great deal about the sanctity of agreements, and the need for agreements being kept. This agreement is just as sacred as any agreement made with a foreign power,
yet this Clause scraps the agreement and sets aside both employers and workmen alike. The Secretary of State for the Dominions is always telling us about the sanctity of agreements and taxes the Irish Free State with breaking an agreement; yet this Government proposes to cancel an agreement they have made. The building trade will probably learn by their experience. They have been shockingly treated by the Government, and no one can blame them if they safeguard their livelihood. But for a barrister to talk about the line of demarcation between workmen and to utter cheap sneers upon them is the limit of bad taste.

Major PROCTER: I made no aspersion on the workmen, but I did question the sincerity of Labour Members who speak on behalf of the working classes and yet refuse to do something which will help the working classes to get houses at a rent which they can afford.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The building trade, which has now an ample supply of labour, can provide the houses required three times over. There might be something in the hon. and gallant Member's case if the building trade could not supply the houses required, if their restrictions were keeping back house building, but the facts are all against the hon. and gallant Member. The building trade can supply the houses required if allowed to do so. The hon. and gallant Member draws a line between one trade and another, but he says that there must be no line of demarcation between lawyers and barristers. He must remember that a man who serves his time at a trade, say for five years, invests his livelihood in that trade and is not likely to throw up his whole livelihood because the hon. and gallant Member makes sneering remarks about how he does his work in the nailing up of some picture. Sneering and offensive remarks can be made about Members of Parliament. Any cheapjack comedian can make offensive remarks about politicians; and I say that members of the building trade do their work with credit to themselves and as craftsmen and compared with any other body of men either here or abroad. If they make a mistake in nailing up something it is only human after all. Their mistakes will not compare with the mistakes which this Government will make before their job is
finished. I am tired of all this. I once knew a joiner who went to repair some property, and whilst doing the work was told by another man how he should do the job. When he asked the other man what he was and was informed that he was a billposter he said, "I cannot stand this. I cannot be told what to do by a man who is a billposter." And when the hon. and gallant Member tells working men how to do their job it is about the limit.

Major PROCTER: The hon. Member forgets that I, being an engineer, am entitled to do so; I could have done the job myself.

Mr. BUCHANAN: We have your assertion; but some of them will have sneering remarks to make as to how you do your job as a politician just as you have made sneering remarks as to how a plumber does his job. I have lived in an Addison house, and they have a lot of faults. They were built in very difficult times, when the industry was not organised and when men were coming back from the War after two and three years in the Army. These men were credited with the years they had served in the Army and were admitted as full tradesmen, because it was thought that they should not be penalised through having fought in the War; and the hon. and gallant Member sees fit to make sneering remarks. The Addison scheme left a lot to be desired, but it was a genuine attempt to build houses at a time when the country needed them, and I would sooner have the millions of pounds wasted in that way as perhaps some of that money was wasted, than the millions which were wasted in warfare in Russia and elsewhere.
I look upon this Clause as the violation of a treaty made between various parties to build houses over a period of 15 years, with a guarantee of a £9 subsidy. The value of such a subsidy was never greater than it is now. In 1924 the cost of houses was much higher, money was dear. Money is now, comparatively speaking, much cheaper, and costs are falling. A £9 subsidy which could not bring the houses down to a working-class level in 1924 would do so now, and now, when it is of the greatest value in the erection of houses, it is proposed to take it away. This is not the time for such a policy;
we must keep the subsidy because houses should be built in greater numbers now than ever before. No one who really considers the housing conditions of the country, urban or rural, can do so with any satisfaction. It is said that private enterprise can build the houses required. Private enterprise will only build when it can see a profit on the capital invested, and no one can argue that the building of working-class houses has yet reached a profit-making basis. The great bulk of the people who require them, the mass of the working population, are those whose wages are falling, who are working on short time and who are insecure in their employment. They cannot meet the rents which it will be necessary to charge if private enterprise is to make a profit. It is wrong to take the subsidy away at this moment and I hope the Committee will vote for it to remain.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: The hon. and learned and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Procter) has seen fit to come down to this House and level a charge of insincerity against the Labour party on the question of housing. I do not question the sincerity of the hon. and learned and gallant Member for Accrington, but I do question his authority to speak on this question of housing. I should have thought that after his wide experience with the Black-and-Tans in Ireland he was a greater authority on burning down houses than on constructing them.

Major PROCTER: I hope the hon. Gentleman is not inferring that I was a Black-and-Tan.

Mr. COCKS: I was referring to the hon. Member's experience in Ireland in connection with the Black-and-Tans.

Major PROCTER: I was an officer in His Majesty's regular Army and not a Black-and-Tan.

Mr. COCKS: Anyone who served in Ireland during that terrible time must have a far better knowledge of burning down houses than of constructing them. I think that the hon. and gallant Member when he has been a little longer in this House will know better than to come here and charge his fellow Members with being insincere without, as far as I could see, any knowledge of the subject on which he was talking. As far as
this Clause is concerned, there is less to be said for it than for any other part of the Government's policy. The Government's general policy seems to be the policy of doing nothing. Here they are going backward and causing people to be thrown out of work by withdrawing the subsidy for municipal housing. Therefore this is a Clause which deserves even greater condemnation than the general policy of the Government is receiving, riot only in this House but throughout the country, at Rotherham and places of that kind where by-elections occur. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) made a very interesting speech as to the effect of this Clause upon rural housing. That is a very important subject. At least 20 years ago a Royal Commission reported that there was a shortage of 200,000 cottages in the rural districts, and very little has been done since then to meet that shortage. Two years ago my friend Sir Tudor Walters had a scheme for building a large number of cottages in the country.

Mr. BUCHANAN: He and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health were then in the same group of the Liberal party.

Mr. COCKS: I do not know the extent of the intimacy between the Parliamentary Secretary and Sir Tudor Walters, but the facts I have stated are not in dispute. We have a great shortage of cottages in the country districts. Many of the existing cottages are very old. They may be very picturesque. Visitors from overseas admire them, with their honeysuckle round the door and all the rest of it, but these visitors would not like to live in the cottages. The sanitary conditions are very bad, there is often no water supply, and although the people are living in ideal surroundings, as far as the natural beauties of the countryside are concerned, they cannot be expected to be very healthy. So we find that in the villages, phthisis, rheumatism and all sorts of illnesses are extremely common. We have only to read the reports of medical officers of health on the condition and health of the children and people in the country villages to realise the importance of providing them with better accommodation. Apart from that, although the rural population is declining, there are workers who have no cottages to live in when they grow up and wish to get married.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Why should they wish for such a luxury?

Mr. COCKS: My hon. Friend thinks it is a luxury. It is one of the luxuries that he enjoys.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Rather expensive for me, anyhow.

Mr. COCKS: No, I think the hon. Member would be far worse off if he had not got that particular luxury. One result of the shortage of cottages is that the population of the countryside is coming into our towns and increasing the army of unemployed there. There is another effect to be borne in mind. Farm labourers often have to live miles away from their work, to which they have to cycle or walk in all sorts of weather. The children, too, live too far from their schools. Here public expenditure is involved, for the Government have to erect schools in widely scattered districts for a few children, whereas if the children were concentrated in the villages the expenditure on education would be less. Owing to the shortage of cottages we have also the terrible position of the people who live in tied cottages. We know that tyranny exists. Decent English people are sometimes afraid to express their views on politics or religion because they are afraid of being turned out of tied cottages, and they have nowhere else to go. The unemployed man in a town is a comparatively free man, for if there is another opportunity of getting work he can take it, but in the country very often if a man is thrown out of his employment he is thrown out of his cottage at the same time. The withdrawing of the subsidy is perpetuating conditions such as these.
Then there is the urban problem. Hon. Members opposite have only to read the "Daily Herald" every day to find some very vivid descriptions of the disgraceful state of the slum population in our great cities. I challenge anyone to read those articles and not say that slum clearance is one of the greatest tasks the Government can undertake at the moment. They should blow up the slums and rebuild them. Overcrowding conditions, we all know, are terrible. The families living in one room make a total of 500,000 people, and about 5,000,000 people are living in crowded conditions. Yet we
have unemployment growing every day, builders out of work, and plenty of money available, in spite of the stranglehold that the Bank seems to have on the Government. In this matter the position of the Government in the presence of the Bank of England is like that of a frightened rabbit in the presence of a stoat. The Government seem to want to prove that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right when he said that there would be no decrease in unemployment for 10 years.
The Government are taking away the subsidy from municipal authorities, and preventing those authorities from carrying on the rebuilding of houses in our towns. One of the things which I cannot understand is that a highly intelligent man like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, sitting there with a highly intellectual party behind him, cannot see these things, or, that, if he sees them, he does not say: "This must be done, or, if it is not done, I will get out of the Government." It has been admitted by the Minister of Health that, whatever else he may say about this policy, it will not succeed in erecting houses which can be let at the lowest rents to the poorest of the people. The Minister has said that under this scheme the building societies cannot build the very cheapest houses.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now going past the Clause with which we are dealing. We have not yet reached Clause 2 of the Bill.

Mr. COCKS: I will reserve my remarks on that point for Clause 2. What is really wanted to-day is a great national policy for rebuilding our towns and cities through the medium of municipal and other local authorities. This Clause strikes against such a policy. A policy of that kind would reduce unemployment, would improve the health of the people, and would bring about economy even from the point of view of the Treasury. But the Government are facing against that policy, and that is one of the reasons why the Labour party are unanimously opposed to this Clause.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: It may be that some Members of the Committee are very anxious to get this business out of the way, but we are anxious to have business
done properly and to have a full expression of opinion on the Clause before us. Certain hon. and learned Gentlemen who are accustomed to sit in the courts may be anxious to get rid of business of this kind in the House of Commons, but in their own particular class of work they are not so expeditious and they should allow a little latitude to Members of this Committee who desire that full consideration should be given to a Clause of this importance. We, who come from working-class districts and who represent the people, more especially those of us who have served on housing committees, have a right to express our opinions even to a Minister of the Crown in charge of a Housing Bill. We may at times criticise the Minister from a political point of view, but I am anxious to approach this matter, not from a political point of view, but from the point of view of impressing upon a Minister in the National Government the necessity of giving some consideration to those people in our cities who are directly interested in the housing question.
The subsidy has been a Godsend to the depressed areas of this country. Under the subsidy system, it was found practicable by housing authorities to carry out their obligations and to give, in some measure, decent homes and the amenities necessary for the moral life of the people. When, in this year of 1933 a Minister of the Crown at short notice announces that he is going to end that system, and that he is not prepared to accept conditions whereby we think justice might be done, we are justified in raising our voices in protest and pointing out the difficulties of the situation. In Liverpool, irrespective of parties, we have had to house about 13,000 people. We have done so, and we have been very thankful to previous Governments who enabled us to fulfil that great obligation.
If hon. Members treat their responsibilities so lightly as to be absent from this Committee when a discussion on housing is in progress, and only attend here when high finance is being considered, that is a matter for their constituents. But I am concerned with the problem of those who have to live nine or ten in a room, who have to live in cellars and garrets under conditions described by medical officers as demoralising. As a member of the housing committee in
Liverpool I am surprised at hon. Members for that city not being in their places to-night. They ought to be here, because they have been asked to support our point of view as against that of the Minister. There is an obligation on every Member of this Committee to take part in dealing with the grave subject of housing in our cities. The question of the subsidy is one of the vital factors in the depressed areas. The proposals of the Government are going to increase the rates and place tradesmen in a difficult position, and, what is more important, in the words of the Minister himself, they are not going to provide cheap houses for our people.
The Minister approaches this matter from the point of view of financial economy. He is out to protect the interests of the Treasury and that being so, liberal time ought to be given to the local authorities in order that they may face their obligations and meet the difficulties of the housing situation. After 10 years on a local council I know of no problem in which hon. Members ought to be more interested than this. We speak to the people about better homes and improved housing conditions, but when we come here to this Committee we find an Amendment which merely seeks to give the local authorities time to get through their responsibilities, thrown on one side. We find a Minister stern, autocratic, despotic, out to protect the interests of the Treasury. He asks for power to carry on; he says that he is not going to have any datum limit. He admits that a datum limit might in certain circumstances, be necessary, but he says that in exceptional circumstances he will be pleased to deal with exceptional cases. Whatever merit there may be in that kind of statement, we want more than that. We want the statement implemented in a Bill, and, when we are confronted with the kind of legislation which is before us, every Member who professes to look after the interests of the people ought to protest against it. We have 5,000 people in Liverpool waiting for homes, and there are hundreds of thousands up and down the country. Surely no Minister of Health in those conditions can find fault with one who raises this question from the point of view of unemployment and housing conditions. If there is a forum in which
such a voice should be heard, surely it is the British House of Commons.
I come here not to find fault with the Minister, but to demand whether it is not possible for us to provide homes for people who want them so badly. What do we find in this Clause? We find that the Government propose to withdraw the subsidy, representing the equivalent of 4s. a week on the rent of three roomed non-parlour houses over a period of 40 years. That will not give to the poor, to the unemployed, to the destitute cheap houses in which to live. I contend that no nation can be grand or good or can avoid the spread of Communism unless it has proper housing conditions. I live in an overcrowded area, in which every street cries out for the retention of the subsidy, to enable the municipality to deal in a proper and generous manner with those who are unable to afford decent housing accommodation. I come here only to express the voice of the people who sent me here, in whose district I live. The Parliamentary Secretary visited the City of Liverpool, and he knows that the housing conditions there are terrible. Dante's "Inferno" is nothing in comparison with the miserable hovels there, which should have gone 50 or 60 years ago; and we are unable to remodel our city because of the price of land.
The Government, in taking this drastic step of depriving us of the subsidy, have practically taken the life of the people of the City, and I trust that whatever may be in the mind of the Minister, and whatever he may mean by his word "may," there will be some elasticity offered to us, at least in regard to our scheme, which is only a few weeks late in coming forward, which isbona fide,and which gives us on the outer area of the City an opportunity to take advantage of a subsidy, if the right hon. Gentleman can find in this Measure some method by which to enable us to complete what is essential, namely, at least 5,000 houses. I have spoken from my heart, and I trust that the Minister will believe that it is not a case of empty vapourings from this bench, but an honest and sincere desire on our part that our people shall be able to get the benefit of that word "may," which the Minister himself says gives him elasticity. I have spoken against this Clause only in order
to put forward the point of view of Liverpool in the unhappy position in which that City finds itself in regard to housing.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I do not apologise to those who appear to think that this is a matter that ought to be passed over very lightly and who want to get on to some other matter, which apparently they think more important. I have often been struck with the things that attract Members into this House and the things that apparently empty the House and bore Members, particularly those representing 'agricultural constituencies. One would imagine that if there was anything, outside the question of unemployment, that should interest Members of the House generally, and fill the House for a real, live discussion, it would be the question of the housing conditions under which the people live, but all the time that I have been here, both in this Parliament and in others, I have been struck with the fact that when housing is under discussion the House is practically empty, yet when elections are on, housing forms perhaps the main plank in the election addresses of most of those who address the voters. Apparently what interests hon. Members most—

The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member come to the Clause under discussion?

Mr. McENTEE: With all humility, I submit that I am discussing the Clause, which deals with the housing conditions of the people and the taking away of the subsidy, which has been in existence for a number of years. The effect of taking away the subsidy will be to make the housing conditions almost impossible in most districts in this country. I submit that this Clause will do several things. In the first place, and perhaps the most important of all, it will definitely increase the rents of people who obtain houses under the new conditions. I think I am not far wrong when I say that the £7 10s. subsidy is worth about 2s. 1d. a week on the rent of the tenant, and that the £11 subsidy for rural housing is worth perhaps 1s. 4d. more, or, say, 3s. 6d. or 3s. 8d. a week. I cannot see that there is any alternative to this Clause meaning that, even if the houses are built in large numbers—as the Minister appears to think will be the case, though I do not
agree—the houses that are now let at 12s. in urban areas will cost 14s. or 14s. 3d. under the new conditions. That will be a very serious matter for the people in my constituency and in other constituencies.
In Walthamstow we have a waiting list of something like 3,800 people, in spite of the fact that we have built 1,300 to 1,400 houses—I do not remember the exact number—and we are particularly anxious to see that those people get a reasonably good habitation. We are very dissatisfied with the housing conditions in the area, and we naturally want them improved; and, as a member of that local council and of this House, I have to ask myself, Will the new conditions that are now sought to be imposed upon us increase our opportunities of making decent homes for the people? I do not think the Minister will dispute my contention that they will not increase those opportunities, because, in the first place, they will increase rents. That is a certainty. As to the houses themselves, there is no guarantee at all that when they are built they will be let at the old rent, plusthe value of the withdrawn subsidy, as the Minister thinks will happen. There appears to be no guarantee at all that the increase in the rent due to the withdrawal of the subsidy will stop at that, because it will be open to any of the speculative builders who may induce building societies to make loans to charge what rent they like, and as a result the opportunities of the people to live in those houses will be lessened again.
Therefore, I cannot help feeling that this is one of the worst Bills, from the point of view of the opportunities of the people to live in decent houses, that have been introduced into this House in my experience here. I cannot help feeling that the knowledge that it was coming probably played a very large part in the election result that has been announced to-day, and I cannot help feeling also— and I am not at all sorry for it—that when it becomes known that the Minister refuses to make any concessions at all, as apparently he intends to do, along the lines which we advocate, the result will be even more disastrous for the Government. I want to make the strongest possible protest, in the interests of the poor people, not only in my own constituency, but in all urban and rural
areas, at the attempt which has beer made by the Minister to prevent then from living in decent houses and to drive them back into miserable dirty slums.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. HICKS: I would not have risen had it not been for the speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Procter) who referred particularly to trade conditions in industry as being responsible for the lack of houses. His remarks were particularly vindictive, and I do not think that they were based on very much information. I have a sense of satisfaction, however, in that the hon. and gallant Gentleman brought an atmosphere of reality into the Debate. It seemed as if the speeches that had been made were simply being poured off in order to pass the time until the clock reached the hour when we were to go into the Lobby. The proposal in this Bill will change the whole course of housing activity from that which we have known for the past 10 or 12 years. Fundamentally it changes the whole method of approach to the problem of house building, and from my experience I seriously believe that the Government by this proposal will signally fail to produce anything like the number of houses that even they have in mind. It may be an easy thing for us at the end of 12 months to be able to say that we had told the Government that this method of approach to the problem would not materialise in the provision of houses, and we might be able to propose a Vote of Censure and get it substantially supported in the House, but what about the people who would be deprived of housing accommodation and who could have had it if there had been a right method of approach? They are clamped down in the misery of their housing conditions with little or no chance of escape.
The attempt to rely upon voluntary effort—voluntary from the point of view of the financing organisation, the builder, and the measuring of the housing requirements—will fail to make any substantial contribution to housing. I speak as one who has taken part in negotiations for housing activities. I have helped to build houses and to superintend building, and I have negotiated with responsible persons for a number of years in an attempt to get housing activity in this country. The hon. and gallant Member for Accring-
ton referred to the lines of demarcation in the industry, but he was particularly ill-informed of the general activities of the building industry to bring forward such a frivolous point as a serious contribution to the Debate. He gave in stances where relatively incompetent people were called upon to do certain work, and he spoke of picture rails and skirting boards being nailed to a, gaspipe. I do not know whether it was an iron gas-pipe. He followed that up by saying that if it were not for the strict rules of the trade unions housing could be made cheaper. If he had applied the ordinary measures of examination, he would have found that they were incompetent persons who were executing the class of work to which he was referring. Competent tradesmen could not do anything of the kind. No responsible body in the country, either of municipal authorities or employers or anyone who knows anything about building, has any complaint to make about the effect of the general lines of demarcation on the expedition of work or the cost of work. It is absurd to attempt to argue that such a thing is responsible for stopping house production.
Owing to the Government's change of policy, I feel that the members of my own organisation are condemned to a longer period of inactivity than is necessary. Instead of having an opportunity to exercise their skill in building houses, they will still be signing on at the Employment Exchanges or going to the public assistance committees. We have increased our personnel at the request of previous Governments. We agreed to adopt ex-service men and to train them and to give them work side by side with craftsmen. We have paid very dearly for it. These men were the first to be unemployed when there was little opportunity for employment because their skill was not equal to that of the others, and we had to subsidise them out of trade union funds during unemployment. We have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds in that direction. In addition, manufacturers must feel very apprehensive about this change of policy, for in order to meet the housing needs they laid down additional plant. Many yards and factories are partially idle to-day. It seems such a pity to waste all the skill and the capacity that we have. There is
no chance to apply it unless there is assisted guidance. All the technique of our builders, which is as rich as the country has ever known, is to be allowed to be picked up here and there in a haphazard sort of way. There is to be nothing organised about it. It is all to be left to chance—the chance that some municipal authority, finding that they have a waiting list of 3,000 or 4,000 people wanting houses, may call the master builders together and suggest to them that they should approach the building societies to see if they would be agreeable to advance financial assistance.

The CHAIRMAN: The speech of the hon. Member is becoming a speech on the Bill rather than on Clause 1.

Mr. HICKS: I do not wish to trespass against any ruling you may lay down, Sir Dennis, but this Clause is altering the whole principle on which we have acted in housing matters, and I wish to direct attention to this violent change, which, in my opinion, will be responsible for slowing down housing activity rather than stimulating it. I am sure the House would wish to see house building encouraged, in view of the effect which poor housing has upon the character of our people and in face of the terrible statistics we have as to people who are living in overcrowded and unhealthy conditions. I fear that the general complacency with which hon. Members appear to accept this change will be regretted in the future. The statement of the Minister that if we take away the subsidies and leave private enterprise a free and unfettered opportunity the effect will be to stimulate building enterprise is one with which we respectfully disagree.
The change we are introducing will not increase the number of houses to anything like the extent which is necessary. In present economic conditions, with the poverty which prevails among our people, there will be no sufficient guarantee to master builders that they will find people able to rent or purchase houses and that will be no stimulus to them to build. The Government have taken the wrong approach to this problem. We are sorry, also, that the Minister has not agreed to extend the period during which schemes may be submitted and sanctioned. If he had agreed to the longer period it would
have given him a better opportunity to secure from agencies such as building societies some guarantee, some public statement, something more than a mere gesture—secure a definite assurance that they were prepared to build houses. We cannot say whether ten houses will be built by the building societies, or 10,000.

The CHAIRMAN: I must again call the hon. Member's attention to the Motion before the House. 'He is definitely wandering on to Clause 2.

Mr. HICKS: I will reserve my observations on Clause 2 to a later period. I hope the Committee will agree that the taking away of the subsidy from house building is not a step in the direction of providing houses, but is a retrograde step.

8.59 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I do not think I need detain the Committee for more than two minutes, because we have had a very full discussion on the Clause, but one or two points have just arisen with which I would like to deal briefly. I agree with the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) that it is a great pity to interpose the question of demarcation. After all the problem is big enough in itself. We are hoping to secure good will, and if we start flinging taunts at building operatives we shall never solve this problem. The question is, "Shall we or shall we not get more building activity by this change of policy, by the withdrawal of subsidies under the Act of 1923 and the Act of 1924?" The hon. Member said he regretted the complacency shown by the House. As far as I am concerned I am not complacent, but I am infinitely delighted at this change of policy, because it meets the point made by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) and the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan)—whose constituency I knew too well for one day. In my humble judgment, and I am not saying this without a good deal of thought, the only hope of clearing out some of those hovels lies in the policy on which we have embarked, because as

long as we have the 1924 Act subsidy continuing local authorities will go on building lovely housing estates, although not a fraction of 1 per cent. of slum dwellers will ever get into the houses. That is my strong conviction. These lovely new houses nearly always go to the aristocracy of the working class.

We propose to reverse that policy and concentrate on the 1930 Act subsidy, which is payable only in respect of persons displaced from the slums. No displacement, no subsidy. Local authorities will have an unrivalled opportunity in the next few years of using the Act and concentrating on slum clearance as they have never done before. I hope hon. Members will observe what is happening —I think it is happening in Liverpool. The local authorities are already concentrating to a quite remarkable degree on this Act. There have been more houses "declared" in the last fortnight than for a long time past. I would like to congratulate the Corporation of Liverpool on the way it is solving the question of re-housing on the spot. It is solely due to the fact that we have announced the removal of the subsidy under the Act of 1924 and left the local authorities free to get on with this tremendous and baffling question of slum clearance. That is all I need say. My right hon. Friend dealt fully with the justification for the Government's policy in agricultural areas. I just wanted to add that one word on slum clearance.

Mr. LOGAN: Is there no gleam of hope with regard to the date? What about any concession? It is all right for the Minister to say, "Oh, oh," but we want to know. We are not concerned with the Minister's "Oh, oh."

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I have dealt very fairly, and I think very fully, with that point, and I feel that we have the general assent of the Committee for our policy. There has been a full discussion and I hope the Committee will now let us have the Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 219: Noes, 48.

Division No. 56.]
AYES.
[9.4 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Saltour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Ralniel, Lord
Bonn, Sir Arthur Shirley


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Birchall, Major Sir John' Dearman.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Hartland, George A.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Blindell, James
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Borodale, Viscount
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Rankin, Robert


Bossom, A. C.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ratcllfle, Arthur


Boulton, W. W.
Hornby, Frank
Ray, Sir William


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Horobin, Ian M.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Horsbrugh. Florence
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)
Robinson, John Roland


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Browne, Captain A. C.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Burghley, Lord
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Ker, J. Campbell
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Burnett, John George
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Salt, Edward w.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Law, Sir Alfred
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Carver, Major William H.
Leckle, J. A.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Casseis, James Dale
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Scone, Lord


Castlereagh, Viscount
Lees-Jones, John
Selley, Harry R.


Cayzer, Ma). Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Levy, Thomas
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Lewis, Oswald
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leotric
Liddall, Walter S.
Slater, John


Christie, James Archibald
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)


Clarry, Reginald George
Llewellin, Major John I.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)


Conant, R, J. E.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cook, Thomas A.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Cooke, Douglas
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Somervllie, Annesley A, (Windsor)


Craven-Ellis, William
McKie, John Hamilton
Somervllie, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Soper, Richard


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Cross, R. H.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Crossley, A. C.
Magnay, Thomas
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Maitland, Adam
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Storey, Samuel


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Denvllie, Alfred
Martin, Thomas B.
Strauss, Edward A.


Dickie, John P.
Mayhew, Lieut-Colonel John
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Donner, P. W.
Meller, Richard James
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Drewe, Cedric
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest;
Sutcliffe, Harold


Duckworth, George A. V.
Milne, Charles
Templeton, William P.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mitcheson, G. G.
Thomson. Sir Frederick Charles


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Elmley, Viscount
Morrison, William Shepherd
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Nail, Sir Joseph
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
North, Captain Edward T.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Forestler-Walker, Sir Leolin
Nunn, William
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Fox, Sir Gifford
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Palmer, Francis Noel
Wells, Sydney Richard


Glossop, C. W. H.
Patrick, Colin M.
Weymouth, Viscount


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Pearson, William G.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Gaff, Sir Park
Peat, Charles U.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Goldle, Noet B.
Percy, Lord Eustace
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Petherick, M.
Wilson. Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Greene, William P. C.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Grimston, R. V.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Potter, John
Withers, Sir John James


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Womersley, Walter James


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Pybus, Percy John



Hanbury, Cecil
Raikes, Henry V. A. M-
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Major George Davies and Dr. Morris-Jones.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Curry, A. C.
Harris, Sir Percy


Attlee, Clement Richard
Daggar, George
Hicks, Ernest George


Banfield, John William
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Janner, Barnett


Batey, Joseph
Edwards, Charles
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Kirkwood, David


Buchanan, George
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lawson, John James


Cape, Thomas
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Logan, David Gilbert


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro, W.)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Cove, William G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McGovern, John


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)




Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Price, Gabriel
White, Henry Graham


Maxton, James
Rathbone, Eleanor
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Mliner, Malar James
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Nathan, Major H. L.
Thorne, William James



Owen, Major Goronwy
Tinker, John Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Parkinson, John Allen
Wallhead, Richard C.
Mr. D. Graham and Mr. G. Macdonald.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 2.—(Power of Minister to reimburse part of losses sustained under guarantees to building and other societies.)

9.12 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, after the word "houses," to insert the words:
 of not less than six hundred and twenty and not more than nine hundred and fifty superficial feet, and.
My inspiration for this Amendment is the Act of 1923, which was fathered by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was Minister of Health. I am always glad to pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his great work for housing as Lord Mayor of Birmingham and as Minister of Health. I always felt that he did his great work when he was Minister of Health. Although in this, that or the other way one may find fault with certain details, he nevertheless did a great constructive work. He had had intimate knowledge of housing needs and of the necessities of the great towns, during his experience in local administration, and he was assisted by the good advice of his Department and of the housing experts. I was on the Committee at the time with him when the 1923 Bill was upstairs, and when he devised his formula.
I suggest to the Committee—and most hon. Members will, I think, agree with me—that, if it is necessary to put figures into a Bill when you are dealing with the local authorities, it is even more necessary to do so when you are dealing with private enterprise which is to get public assistance, in however small an amount. The partnership of the State with the building societies and the private builder is to be small, but the very fact that public money is to be involved should make it necessary on the one hand to see that public money does not go to too large a house occupied by people quite above the poverty line, and, on the other hand, that it does not go to too small a house. The fault of many of the poorer districts of our great towns is that the houses are mean, badly planned and designed, and
quite unsuitable for their purpose, and, therefore, I have proposed this formula.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman is going to give sympathetic consideration to another Amendment later on the Paper, but I think it would be more satisfactory to everyone concerned—and there are three, indeed four, partners in this matter—to have the figures specified in the Bill. In the first place, there is the State; secondly, there are the local authorities; thirdly, there are the building societies; and, fourthly, there is the builder. It would be just as well to know what kind of house is going to be sympathetically considered by the Department when schemes come before it for approval, and it is just as well to give a clear lead. I suggest that the matter would be solved once for all if we put the figures, as in the Act of 1923, in this new Act of 1933.

Mr. JANNER: I desire to support the Amendment which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend. I do not think that there is Very much to be added to what he has already said.

9.17 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: As the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has rightly stated, there are certain other Amendments later on the Paper which cover something of the same ground, and on which we shall be able to meet the point of view which I think is also represented in this Amendment. If I ask the hon. Member not to press his Amendment, it is for the following reasons, which I think are adequate. In the first place, I think it is wrong, if we desire to promote activity, to impose any unnecessary regulations: Are the particular restrictions which the hon. Member would impose unnecessary? I think I can satisfy him that they are. In the first place, as regards the upper limit of 950 square feet, that is certainly far in advance of anything that is necessary for the provision of the sort of house that we want to provide—the small house let at a reasonable rent to the lower paid wage earner; and, that being so, it is not the type of house for which we want
this scheme to be used. It would be wrong to specify this upper limit in the Bill. Its inclusion would only give rise to unfounded anticipations of assistance for the provision of middle-class houses, which is not what these guarantees are intended for; they are intended for the provision of working-class houses.
As to the lower limit the answer is that it is unnecessary to provide a lower limit in this Clause because it is already provided in our legislation in a satisfactory and reasonable way. The point is already covered by Section 92 (2) of the Act of 1925, which provides, in the case of a two-storey house, a lower limit of 620 square feet, or, if the Minister is satisfied that the special circumstances of the area justify houses of smaller dimensions, of 570 square feet. That applies to every house which can be assisted by a local authority either by advance or by guarantee. Therefore, the main purpose of the Amendment is already secured in our legislation, and it would only produce confusion to introduce the repetition proposed. In these circumstances, I trust that the hon. Member will not find it necessary to press the Amendment.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: The Minister's speech was very interesting, but, to me at any rate, not at all satisfying, because the policy appears to be to stereotype the house at the lower level. I notice that the Minister said, in reference to what he calls the higher and the lower limits, that the higher limit is something to be discouraged, because, he says, such houses would be in the main occupied by middle-class people. I do not agree at all. The higher limit represents the level of building by local authorities for many years past in the case of what we call the parlour type of house. In effect, the Minister's policy is to encourage the building of as small houses as possible. Apparently, the highest standard that can be obtained in his judgment will be houses of a superficial area of 620 feet, and, in certain districts, 570 feet. I do not want to see that type of house encouraged as against a better class of house. I think the Minister would agree that the demand for houses by what may he called. if you like, the better paid artisan class, is not by any means satisfied, and is not likely to be satisfied
for many years. I think it could be successfully argued that the demand for houses by that class of people at the present time is just as great as it was four or five or six or seven years ago, and practically no inroad has been made in meeting that demand, which is almost, if not quite, as great as it was some years ago. This appears to me to be a definite attempt to lower the standard of houses to the smallest possible space in which a human being can be expected to live, and I hope that the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) will not agree to withdraw his Amendment, in view of the very serious statement that has been made by the Minister.
We are going to hand over all our housing to the building societies and speculative builders to make as much profit as they can out of the housing needs of the people. The Minister told us on a previous occasion that he does not believe that the building societies will be able to cater for the very poorest class of workers. If that be so, and I believe it to be very largely true, it appears obvious that that class of workman who is now getting a better class of house—the parlour type of house, as we have become used to calling it—is to be driven down to what we used to consider the lower standard or non-parlour type of house not exceeding about 620 superficial feet. That is a standard which I hope the House of Commons will not permit the Minister or anyone else to reimpose on the people of this country as a maximum. I shall oppose it as vigorously as I can both here and everywhere else. The figure of 620 superficial feet represents a reduction on the previous low standard, and we are now told that that is to become the highest standard that will be permitted. I hope that the House of Commons will not assent to that suggestion. I wish I could hope that the House, which talks to its people about its desire, as individuals, to raise the general standard of housing, will not submit to this general lowering of the standard to a figure which does not represent decent living accommodation, at any rate for a large family.

9.25 p.m.

Lord E. PERCY: I wonder if I can save the Committee from what I believe would be an absolutely unreasonable and
meaningless Division. The position is that, so far as the lower limit of 620 square feet is concerned, that is already in the Bill. The Bill refers to Section 92 of the Act of 1925, which says that no house to which it applies shall be less than 620 feet. Therefore, this Amendment introduces nothing new into the Bill.

Mr. McENTEE: Does it not introduce into the Bill that that shall be practically the standardised size? The Minister said the larger 950 feet type would not be built.

Lord E. PERCY: No, not at all. If the Bill stands as it is, no one may, under the Act, build a house of less than 620 feet superficial area.

Mr. LAWSON: Except at the discretion of the Minister.

Lord E. PERCY: I think not. If hon. Members will look at the provisions of Section 92 they will see that 620 superficial feet, in the case of a two-storied house, is the minimum, and then there comes in the case of the structually separate and self-contained flat or one-storey house of 570 superficial feet. That is being calculated in accordance with the rules by the Minister, provided, if an authority or council in any particular case satisfies the Minister, and so on, he may determine in the case of a two-storied house to reduce it to 570 feet. That has been the position up to now. All you will really be doing if you pass this Amendment is to say that the houses shall not be larger than 950 superficial feet. You will be going into the Lobby in order to support a limitation on the size of the houses local authorities may build under this Bill, and you will be saying that they shall not be larger than a certain superficial area. That is a proposition which no one wants to go into the Lobby to support.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I hope the hon. Gentleman who has moved this Amendment will not accept the position laid down by the right hon. Gentleman. I think the right hon. Gentleman himself made an unanswerable case when he pointed out that his own suggestion was based on the minimum laid down by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer when Minister of Health.

Lord E. PERCY: It is in the Bill already.

Mr. LAWSON: The Noble Lord must not think that we are taken in by that kind of chaff. As a matter of fact, he has already admitted himself that it is possible, at the Minister's discretion, to cut the size down to 570 superficial feet in the case of a one-storied house.

Lord E. PERCY: When the hon. Gentleman says he is not going to be taken in by that kind of chaff, that seems to me rather an insulting remark. I was quoting from the Act to which he refers.

Mr. LAWSON: I did not mean to be at all discourteous to the Noble Lord. The point 1 was making was that the Minister, at his discretion, may make the one-storied house 570 feet and the two-storied house in certain cases. I remember very well some years ago my hon. Friend the Member for Spenny-moor (Mr. Batey) and other Members, asked for a subsidy for the homes of aged people in the North of England. It was all we could do to persuade the Minister of Health to give us a subsidy for houses round about 600 superficial feet. Now we have come to the stage when you have the possibility of having houses of 570 superficial feet. I take it that is about the size of the house laid down now for the aged people, so we have got now for a family a possible minimum that my hon. Friend laid down in his Bill for two aged people. I do not expect that Liberals are going to agree to a, proposal of this kind. A house of 620 superficial feet is low enough as a minimum. As the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has said, 620 superficial feet is in the Bill, and I take it he thinks that is the desirable minimum, but there is considerable doubt in the minds of hon. Members, as in the mind of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. I take it that the Committee will agree that any doubt should be removed and that 620 feet is certainly a low enough minimum for working-class people or anyone else, with a family, to live in. Let us get into our minds what 620 superficial feet means. The figure has been pushed down stage by stage until we have got to the position that though we had to ask the Minister of Health to give us subsidies for our aged
miners' homes with a minimum space which was too small for our old people, yet that is practically the minimum space laid down in this Bill. I hope the hon. Member who moved the Amendment will stick to his guns, and refuse to compromise on the matter.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. C. BROWN: We are practically abandoning altogether, except in one or two special instances, our social responsibility in regard to the housing of the working classes by State and municipalities and turning the matter over to private enterprise. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) that we should do everything we can to keep private enterprise up to the scratch. I cannot square the argument of the Minister with the argument of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Sir E. Percy). The Minister suggests that he does not want to accept this Amendment because it would be imposing what he calls unnneccessary restrictions in this Bill. He prefers to leave the matter hazy, indefinite and indecisive, and he does not wish to put in any unnecessary restrictions. The Noble Lord tells us that as far as the lower limit is concerned, this is already secured by the provisions of the Bill, but the Minister, in the course of his

remarks, said it was not at all likely that the houses which private enterprise would provide would be anything approximating to 950 superficial feet.

Sir H. YOUNG: Not quite that, but it is not the intention to make use of the guarantee for the provision of houses as big as that. Private enterprise may very likely provide those houses. I hope it will, but these are not the houses we desire to promote for social purposes, and for which the guarantee would be given.

Mr. BROWN: That does not seem to be any argument why the Minister should refuse to insert these figures in the Bill. The argument about unnecessary restrictions falls to the ground on the arguments that the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings has put before the Committee. Let us have something satisfactory, decisive, clear and definite. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman accept this Amendment 7 It will not overload the Bill with any unnecessary restrictions. I feel that the hon. Baronet ought to stick to his guns and press the Amendment to a Division.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 44; Noes, 198.

Division No. 57.]
AYES.
[9.35 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'.W).
Milner, Major James


Banfield, John William
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Batey, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Harris, Sir Percy
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hicks, Ernest George
price, Gabriel


Buchanan, George
Janner, Barnett
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Thorne, William James


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
White, Henry Graham


Curry, A. C.
Lawson, John James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Uanelly)


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William



Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
McGovern, John
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. D. Graham.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Burghley, Lord


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie


Albery, Irving James
Blindell, James
Burnett. John George


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Borodale, Viscount
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Bossom, A. C.
Campbell, Rear-Admiral G. (Burnley)


Applln. Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Carver, Major William H.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Casseis, James Dale


Balfour, Capt. Harold ((I. of Thanet)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)


Balniel, Lord
Broadbent, Colonel John
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Browne, Captain A. C.
Christie, James Archibald


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Clarry, Reginald George


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Law, Sir Alfred
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Colfax, Major William Philip
Leckle, J. A.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecctesall)


Cook, Thomas A.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Robinson, John Roland


Cooke, Douglas
Lees-Jones, John
Ropner, Colonel L.


Craven-Ellis, William
Leighton, Major B, E. P.
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Croom-Johnson, H. P.
Levy, Thomas
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Lewis, Oswald
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Liddall, Walter S.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Llverp'l


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Salt, Edward W.


Denman, Hon. R, D.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Denville, Alfred
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Dickie, John P.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Conner, P. W,
McKie, John Hamilton
Savery, Samuel Servington


Drewe, Cedric
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Scone, Lord


Duckworth, George A. V.
McLean, Dr. W. H, (Tradeston)
Selley, Harry R.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Magnay, Thomas
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Elmley, Viscount
Maitland, Adam
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Slater, John


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-ln-F.)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Meller, Richard James
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)


Fielden, Edward Brocklchurst
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Somervell. Donald Bradley


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Milne, Charles
Somervllie, Annesley A (Windsor)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Mitcheson, G. G.
Somerville, D. G. (Wlliesden, East)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Glucksteln, Louis Halle
Morrison, William Shephard
Storey, Samuel


Goldie, Noel B.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Strauss, Edward A.


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Mulrhead, Major A. J.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Nail, Sir Joseph
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Greene, William P. C.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Templeton, William P.


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
North, Captain Edward T.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nunn, William
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Turton. Robert Hugh


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Hanbury, Cecil
Pearson, William G.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Percy, Lord Eustace
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hartland, George A.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Wardlaw-Mline, Sir John S.


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)
Petherick, M.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Peto, Geoffrey K. W'verh'pt'n, Bllst'n)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Wellt, Sydney Richard


Holdsworth, Herbert
Potter, John
Weymouth, Viscount


Hornby, Frank
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Horobin, Ian M.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Jackson, J. C. (Heywood ft Radcliffe)
Rankin, Robert
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Wise, Alfred R.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Ker, J. Campbell
Ray, Sir William



Kerr, Hamilton W.
Raid, James S. C. (Stirling)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES —


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Mr. Womersley and Commander Southby.

9.44 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, after the word "classes," to insert the words "at reasonable rents."
I appreciate the real difficulty of making these words operative, but we are embarking on a great new experiment, and we are going to come in as partners with builders and building societies to provide houses for what are generally described as people of the working-classes. I have taken considerable trouble to inquire how this machinery is going to operate. The private builder, as I understand it, will see a particular site in Kensington or in one of the provincial towns, half an acre or an acre of land, and will decide
to build houses of the character which we described in the discussion on another Amendment—houses of 620 or more feet. If the demand of middle-class people, clerks in banks and various sections of the community, is such that the supply is short, there is nothing to prevent those houses being let at £2 or even more. Take the Borough of Kensington, where there is real house planning. You cannot get housing accommodation for love or money. There is nothing to prevent a, builder in Kensington from getting public' assistance from the State in the form of a guarantee, and then letting his houses to the highest bidders, and the people for whom it was intended that the houses should be constructed would find the rents charged would be such that they, would be unable to pay them.
Therefore, it is reasonable to put into the Bill some words of the character suggested, and I believe that the words "at reasonable rents"—and I have taken legal advice from my hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner)—are the best words which can be devised for the purpose. If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has better words, or if the Minister of Health is able to suggest something even beter, I shall be satisfied to substitute such words. If this Bill is really going to touch the fringe of the question, and if the machinery is to act as we require it to act, something of this kind of necessary.
I have been told by some people who have made an intensive study of the operations of the private builder that the ordinary builder, the builder of working-class houses, is not worthy of respect, and is sometimes called a jerry builder. But I would point out that he has not finance on a large scale to enable him to build houses to let. He has always been accustomed to build houses to sell. He is not in the financial position to embark upon the building of houses on a large scale to let unless he is able to get a very considerable return on his capital. He is generally a man of comparatively small means, and is accustomed to make his living by turning over his capital immediately. He builds half a dozen houses and sells them, and then proceeds to build more houses. In that way he gets a large return for his money and is able to keep his organisation constantly occupied. If he is going to operate in regard to this new kind of demand, the building of houses to let, something of this character will prevent him from profiteering. If we are to prevent exploitation with the aid of public money and the guarantee of local authorities and the Treasury, some such words as I suggest should be inserted. Perhaps if the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept these words, at any rate, he will make clear to the Committee how he is going to operate the Clause and see to it that the houses really do go to the working classes.

9.49 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I quite understand the motive of the hon. Member in moving the Amendment, and I have given it
most careful consideration to see whether it is desirable, but I fear that the answer must be, that it is not really necessary, and further, that it is quite unworkable. The hon. Member properly asks me the process by which control will be exercised in order to see that the guarantee is not given in respect of houses to let at rents which make them of no use to the working classes. That, of course, will be the function of the local authority and of the Minister at the time at which the scheme is put up for the guarantee. They will then consider all the circumstances of the scheme, the type of houses to be built, the price of the houses, and the economic rent at which they can be let when completed. If they consider that all these things indicate that the rent of the house which is proposed under the scheme and the price which it will cost, are such as to provide a house which can be let at a reasonable rent to the working class, then the guarantee will be given. But if, at the critical period when the scheme is adjudged, the local authority and the Minister are not satisfied that the type of house is one to be let at a reasonable rent to the working class, the guarantee will not be given.
That is the process, as I envisage it, which gives the answer to the question of the hon. Member as to how the control will be exercised to secure houses being let at a reasonable rent. That being so, really all that the Amendment says is that the Minister will exercise his discretion and act reasonably. I suppose it is still the assumption of our legislation that the Ministers act reasonably on the whole, and to give protection to the Minister to act reasonably, without a definition of what reasonably might be, is not of very great utility. That is not the real objection to this Amendment. It goes a good deal deeper. If those words were to be inserted they would impose an obligation upon the Minister to control the rent that is impossible of execution. I am not arguing whether it is desirable or not, but stating the simple fact that it is impossible of execution. There is no unity, as it were, between the local authority and the Minister and this House. There is no connection by which they can review the rent. The only way in which this could be done would be by the establishment of a new office and staff, the cost of which would be considerable. Since it is not in the
essence of the scheme that there should be such control, this enormous expenditure should not be contemplated. The short reply is that the control which the hon. Member desires to see is effectively exercised when the Minister approves the scheme.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. C. BROWN: Most of us on these benches, I think, will be very disappointed with the speech we have just heard from the Minister. As I understand the position, the next Amendment on the Paper will not be called. We have had very little definiteness about standards of housing and that kind of thing, and now, apparently, the question of rent is to be entirely uncontrolled. All the houses which will be built by private enterprise under the Bill will be outside the control of the Rent Restrictions Act. There will be no control with regard to the rents which can be charged, and here obviously is a field in which, in certain circumstances not difficult to visualise, there can be any amount of exploitation of the working class in areas where housing needs are pressing. It is most deplorable indeed that even the moderate words proposed to be inserted by the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) are not to be inserted. The Minister is apparently going to leave this matter to the free play of competition which he so greatly admires. He is going to leave the working classes more or less to their fate in regard to what may or may not happen in regard to the play of free competition. We on these benches feel that some provision, whereby the Minister would have some control over rents, ought to be inserted in the Bill. Consequently, we shall support the Amendment of the hon. Baronet.

9.55 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: I share the disappointment of the last speaker at the Minister's reply. The point is one on which many of us feel very anxious. The right hon. Gentleman's reply, if I understood it correctly, amounts to this, that the control which we want to see exercised will be exercised by himself in conjunction with the local authority at the time when they give the guarantee to the building societies. Before the question goes to the Vote, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what control
there will be to see that the guarantee is carried out. He argued that he could not accept the Amendment, because there was no machinery to supervise the rents, or what happened to the houses after they had been put up. Suppose s, building society states, quite honestly, that it is its intention to put up houses to be let to the working classes, and that five years or so after the houses are put up the building society finds that letting is a very troublesome business and decides to sell the houses. What will be done in that case?

Sir H. YOUNG: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Lady. There is a specific: Amendment on the Order Paper dealing with that matter.

Miss RATHBONE: I am glad to hear that, but I should like to be sure that that specific Amendment ensures that not only will the house be a house to be let but that it shall be let at a, reasonable rent. How can that be ensured if, in the right hon. Gentleman's own words, he is not going to exercise any sort of oversight into the question of what the rent can be? The very case for this Amendment is proved by the unsatisfactory place in Acts of Parliament of phrases which are never defined and which are left to the local authority to interpret rightly. Some time ago I asked a question as to what was the definition put by the Ministry upon the phrase, "Housing of the working classes," which has been used in practically all the Housing Acts for the last 50 years. I was told that it had never been defined and that it had never been found necessary to define it, but that it was left to the local authorities.
Yet, by the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to-day, one of the reasons for the subsidy being stopped is that the beautiful houses, as he termed them, which had been put up by the aid of the subsidy had not gone to the people who really required the subsidy. He said that they went to the cream of the working classes. I think he pitt it much too mildly. Many of the houses have not gone to the working classes at all, but to the middle classes. In one -Debate in the last Parliament a former Member of this House gave an instance which stuck in my mind, where the London County Council had in the same week accepted two tenants, a retired captain with an in-
come of £600 a year, and also two spinster school mistresses with joint incomes amounting to £700 a year, and had refused a man with a wife and three children, whose earnings were £4 a week. It is notorious that one of the things which has led to contempt in the country in regard to the working of the subsidy system is that there has not been control by the local authorities of the houses once they had been put up.
There has been no. attempt to make certain that the houses got into the hands of the people who required subsidised houses. It is very largely because that has gone wrong that the Ministry has now put an end to the subsidy system, yet in this Clause the Minister is going to be content with the least form of control, apparently exercised at the moment that the contract is entered into with the building society. We are not told the nature of the control. Is it to be definitely ensured that the houses are to be let and not sold and, if so, for what period? Is there any termination of the obligation to let and not to sell? In the second place, if the houses are let, is there any guarantee that they will be let at rents that will make them useful to the class of people defined by the Minister as the lower paid wage-earners?

10 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I would not have risen to speak were it not for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman made reference to the impossibility of saying what control might be imposed upon the rents to be charged to tenants of these houses. I hope that the Government will find some method of coping with this matter. At a later stage the houses may either be sold or let to the highest bidder. I cannot see any reason why a formula cannot be obtained, a formula similar to the one which prevails in respect of the Increase of Rents and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts. We might very easily follow a similar wording for the purpose of control in respect of these houses as we do under those particular Acts.

Sir H. YOUNG: Perhaps I can help the hon. Member. There is a specific Amendment on the Order Paper to deal with that matter.

Mr. JANNER: If I can be assured that that Amendment is going to be taken, I
shall sit down, but if it is not the intention to call that Amendment, I should prefer to continue my remarks. May I ask if it is proposed to call that Amendment?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member indicate the Amendment to which he refers?

Mr. JANNER: It is the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee)—in page 2, line 9, after the word "classes," to insert the words
 at rents which do not exceed the rents which would be chargeable if the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts, 1920 to 192,5, applied to such houses.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not my intention to call that Amendment as the present Amendment appears to me to cover a much wider ground.

Mr. JANNER: I understood that to be the case, and that is why I was referring to this particular method of coping with the position, when the right hon. Gentleman interrupted. It appears to me that a formula has been found. It is clear that the Increase of Rents Acts were introduced because it was realised that some kind of control must be put upon the amount of increase permitted in respect of the rents of houses. Why on earth when a grant is being given for the purpose of erecting houses a similar proviso should not be forthcoming to protect the tenants who are going to occupy those houses, I cannot say. It is obvious that it is possible to insert such a proviso, and it is equally obvious that it is not the intention of the Government nor of anybody else in this House to allow the Increase of Rents Acts to he dropped entirely. Consequently, if the Government were to regard the position in its proper light, they might accept some formula of that description. There is no reason why they should not say, so long as these Acts are in force, that the houses which are now being built shall come within the provisions of those Acts. It is the simplest thing in the world and requires no intricate formula. It could be easily worked, because one Act would cover all houses referred to in this Bill as well as houses covered by the Increase of Rents Act. If the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the Amendment I hope he will try and provide by some Amendment to the Bill for tenants to be
protected. I suggest that the easiest way would be to accept the decision of the House in respect of the Increase of Rents Act and make this simple remedy apply in both cases.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: By the interjection of the Minister of Health just now I rather gathered that he thought you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, would call the Amendment which stands in my name, and I rather imagined that he was favourably disposed towards it. However, as you have determined that my Amendment cannot be called I should like the Minister of Health to reconsider his decision on the present Amendment. Let me point out the contradiction in the policy of the Government in regard to rent restriction. In a Bill which the right hon. Gentleman introduced a few days ago he preserves control over the type of house which we are considering at the moment; the only houses which go out of control under that Bill are the larger types of house. The type of house which is to be preserved under the other Bill is not to be controlled at all under this Bill. That indicates one thing to me; that where local authorities are dealing with houses control of rents is to exist, but that where private enterprise is dealing with houses they are to be allowed to exploit the public as much as circumstances will permit.
Under the proposal a local builder may go to a. building society and say, "There is a great demand for houses in a certain locality, indeed, houses are so badly needed that the people there are ripe for exploitation. All you have to do is to enter into an agreement with me to finance a, scheme for the building of houses. When the scheme has been approved by the local authority you agree to a loan of 90 per cent. instead of 70 per cent. In regard to the 20 per cent. two-thirds will be guaranteed by the Government and the local authority, and the only extra risk you have is the 6⅔ per cent.; but in consideration of that the Ministry of Health is prepared to give you the power to exploit the tenants you can get up to the fullest extent. The real position is that there is a tremendous demand for houses and the people will be prepared to rent houses under almost any conditions." That is a serious position in which to leave tenants in congested areas, and some control should be
exercised, in the same way as it is exercised in regard to other houses. Why should a tenant living in a house be protected in his rent and a tenant who goes into one of the new houses not receive similar protection? There is no logic or reason in it.
The only excuse given by the Minister is that there is no machinery in existence. May I remind him that machinery does exist, and that it operates very well. If a local authority, through a public utility society, goes to the Minister with a scheme and the scheme is approved, it is approved under certain conditions; and one of the conditions is that before sanction is given the rent shall be determined and the local authority is compelled to insist on the carrying out of that condition. Is not that machinery available in this case 7 Why should not a local authority in this case have the control over rents which they exercise in regard to certain schemes? It is not a question of machinery, nor is it expensive. It is available; and could be extended. The Minister's statement is only an excuse for not imposing some form of control over rents. Why should tenants be exploited in this way The ordinary speculative builder who gets his money through building societies has only one consideration in mind. He does not go in for the building of houses because people need houses. No baker makes bread because people need food. They bake bread and sell bread because there is a profit in the making and selling of bread; and in the same way a builder enters into a contract solely because he can make a profit out of it. If we are good business men we run our business with the object of making as much profit as we can. That is the system to which the right hon. Gentleman gives his full support, and he is doing a fine service to builders and building societies in refusing to prevent them from exploiting the people to the full. They will thank him very much for it. But we shall take every opportunity to point out that this Government is really not what it professes to be, a National Government, but is a Government which passes a Bill to give further opportunities for an exploitation of the poorer people of the country.
The title of the Bill is wrong. It should be called a Housing Bill to enable builders and building societies to further
exploit the people of the country. That is apparently the main object of the Bill. The object certainly cannot be to give the people houses at reasonable rents, because the Minister has taken every opportuuity to show his desire to enable those people to exploit the tenants and has shown himself definitely opposed to the public interests and the interests of those who are least able to pay for decent housing accommodation. It is sheer rubbish to say that it is not possible to set up machinery. The machinery exists already, and could easily be put into operation if there were any desire to do so. The trouble is that the Minister has no such desire.

10.16 p.m.

Major NATHAN: I wish to join my voice to that of the hon. Baronet, my colleague in the representation of Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), in pressing this Amendment on the Minister. The Minister has twice, in interruptions, referred to an Amendment which covers the point intended to be covered by the Amendment under discussion, but he has not vouchsafed to tell the Committee to what Amendment on the Paper he refers. I find no Amendment on the Paper in the name of the Minister, and I am entirely in the dark as to what Amendment he has in mind. I ask the right hon. Gentleman now to be good enough to inform the Committee to what Amendment he has twice referred. If he will not condescend to do so—

Sir H. YOUNG: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will acquit me of any discourtesy. It takes a moment or two to look up the Amendment.

Major NATHAN: I would not for the world suggest any discourtesy on the part of the Minister. We all know him far too well to do that, but I gathered from his attitude that he was not going to reply to my question.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: If the hon. and gallant Member will look at the middle of page 281 he will see an Amendment in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris).

Major NATHAN: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), but it was
the Minister's reply that I desired to have. The right hon. Gentleman's interruptions and references to an Amendment on the Paper was in any case irrelevant unless accompanied by the further statement that he proposed to accept that Amendment. The Bill provides in this Clause that a guarantee is to be given in respect of houses intended to be let or to be occupied by the working classes. The guarantee is to be given at the point of time when the contract is made, and may very well be long in anticipation of the point of time when the building is finished and ready to be let or sold. It may well happen that in perfect good faith both the Minister and the society will come to an arrangement under which the guarantee has to be given on the footing that at the time the arrangement is made the houses are to be let for occupation by persons of the working classes. But of course there is nothing in the Bill to give any guarantee that public funds will, in fact, only be used for the purpose of ensuring that these houses are let to persons of the working classes.
In the nature of things no such guarantee or definite undertaking to be fulfilled in all circumstances can either be given by the society or exacted by the Minister, because the future does not lie in the hands of the Minister or of the building society. But if there is prescribed in the Bill a figure for the rent, or an indication of how the rent is to be ascertained, that would ensure that the property cannot be used otherwise than for the purposes of letting, and, if the rent be, in the words of the hon. Baronet, "a reasonable rent," the demand by the working classes for houses at a reasonable rent is so great that, as far as anyone can form a judgment in anticipation of the event, the houses will not only be available for the working classes but actually occupied by the working classes. The Minister dismissed rather casually the phrase "reasonable rent" used by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green. I ask myself and I ask the Committee whether the Minister is fully justified in doing so. In the first place, what are the working classes for the purposes of this Act? I refer the Committee to the definition given in the Fifth Schedule to the Housing Act of 1925:
 The expression working class ' includes mechanics, artisans, labourers, and others working for wages, hawkers, costermongers, persons not working for wages‥‥and persons other than domestic servants whose income in any case does not exceed an average of three pounds a week.
It is clear that in the contemplation of the legislature, broadly speaking, the houses that were to be supplied under the Housing Acts were houses for persons in the employments mentioned, with a general indication that it might be assumed that they were persons whose income on the average was £3 a week. That involves that the rent shall be a small rent. It involves that the rent shall be a "reasonable rent"—the term used in this Amendment—having regard to all the circumstances of the case.

Lord E. PERCY: Will the hon. Member read the heading of the Fifth Schedule to the Housing Act of 1925 from, which he has quoted?

Major NATHAN: I am giving the definition used in that Housing Act, and I believe the Noble Lord has the document before him.

Lord E. PERCY: Yes, but the Fifth Schedule is headed:
 Provisions as to rehousing in case of displacement of persons of the working-class.

Major NATHAN: Do I understand the interruption of the Noble Lord to indicate that the definition of persons of the working class in the Bill which we are now considering is different from the statutory definition in the Housing Act of 1925?

Lord E. PERCY: As far as I know, the Fifth Schedule to the Act of 1925 is the only place in which any definition of working class is contained, and that is not a definition for the general purposes of that Act.

Major NATHAN: It is clear that the definition given in the Housing Act of 1925, in the Fifth Schedule, was given for the purposes of that Act.

Lord E. PERCY: No, for the purposes of part of that Act.

Major NATHAN: It was given for the purposes which are indicated in the Fifth Schedule. But I challenge the Noble Lord to find, in the whole of the Housing Acts, any other definition of persons of
the working class. That is the only definition, and if it is any assurance to the Noble Lord, I have taken the trouble to search the Housing Acts to find if there was any other definition. Therefore, it may be assumed that, for the purposes of housing legislation, that is the definition which the Legislature has deliberately adopted. The hon. Baronet framed his Amendment "reasonable rents," and I must confess that it is not a phrase which at first sight I should have regarded as particularly happy, because it is notoriously difficult to define what is a reasonable rent. But I find very considerable assistance from a Circular issued by the Ministry of Health in relation to housing, where this very phrase is used. In Circular 520 the following phrases appear, and for the sake of saving time I put them, shortly, though I quote textually the relevant phrases. It was in relation to the Housing Act of 1924, and in this Circular it was laid down that the object of that Act was to enable
 provision of houses to be made for letting at reasonable rents.
That is the very phrase used by my hon. Friend. But the Circular does not leave the matter there. It goes on to define how a reasonable rent is to be ascertained, and it says that the first thing to be done is to determine what are to be regarded as the rents of ordinary working-class houses, which is to be ascertained according to the rules set out in the Appendix. If one refers to the Appendix, one finds there a set of rules, headed "Rules for determining the appropriate normal rent." In the face of this Circular, issued by the Minister's predecessor in the distinguished office which he now holds, and still in operation, as I understand it, I fail to understand what grounds he can have for refusing to adopt the Amendment of my hon. Friend in the actual terms in which it is proposed, for if my hon. Friend had, in framing his Amendment, sought a precedent, he would have found it in the Circular relating to housing to which I have referred, issued by the Ministry of Health itself.

10.24 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: If I may answer the question put to me, the Amendment to which I referred was that relating to the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Re-
strictions) Acts, which had not yet been ruled out of order. The Amendment would, in the view of the Government, be of no assistance in the matter at all, for the reason that it seeks to apply to the standard of rents for these houses the rents which would be chargeable under the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts. No rents are affected by those Acts except the rents of houses which were in existence before the War, and the figure to which the present rents are restricted is determined by reference to pre-War rents. It is obvious that you cannot apply the standard rent in fixing the reasonable rent for new houses.

Mr. McENTEE: Is it not a fact that the appropriate normal rent is taken as the basis on which rents are fixed by the right hon. Gentleman's own Department?

Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member has not distinguished between normal rents and rents under the Rent Restrictions Acts.

10.31 p.m.

Major NATHAN: I only venture to rise again because of the Minister's reply to my question. The rules to which I was referring under Circular 520 do not in any way refer to the Rent Restrictions Acts. I appreciate the point made by the Minister there, and I do not think that the Amendment to which he referred can be applied to the circumstances of the present case. The Appendix of Circular 520 sets out rules in this way, however:
 The local authority shall obtain particulars of the current rents of working-class houses of all types erected in the district prior to 3rd August, 1914, in such numbers and proportion as are in their opinion fair and representative of all those houses in the district.
Then it makes certain provisos, to which I need not refer, and goes on to say:
 The appropriate normal rent for each of the two classes of houses in the area, or in part of the area as the case may be, shall be the average rent payable in respect of the houses of that class of which particulars have been obtained.
In other words, the Ministry relates reasonable rents of this kind back to the rents as they were in August 1914. Therefore, while I agree, the terms of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) are not appropriate, the
Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has precisely the same object by following out the procedure laid down in Circular 520, which has operated for some years past and still now operates.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am disappointed but not surprised at the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. When he introduced the Bill, he was determined to get back to private enterprise without any restrictions whatever. The only kind of limitation that there is in Clause 2 is that the houses to be built are to be intended to be let to the working classes. He has relented somewhat in regard to the size, and so on, of the houses to be built. His argument against this Amendment and against a subsequent Amendment is that they are unworkable. I think that it has been demonstrated clearly that under the Act of 1924 scores of thousands of houses are having their rents determined on the basis of pre-War rents plus the 40 per cent. allowed under the Rent Restrictions Acts. It is therefore possible to get something approximating the appropriate normal rent for the houses which are now to be built by private enterprise. The right hon. Gentleman told a long story and said that we would have to consider the price of the house and the circumstances of the case—vague phrases, like the Amendments he is prepared to accept in Committee—also the economic rent, and then, if we are satisfied with these things the Government and the local authorities will give the guarantee and the building societies will go ahead, and, at a further stage, the private builder will build the houses.
What is the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility? At a maximum 8s. per house, according to the Financial Memorandum on the Bill. He has no responsibility that matters. He has put forward to-night an Amendment enabling him to take certain steps with the approval of the Treasury. I suggest that the approval of the Treasury in respect of 8s. per house is not very much. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman's control over rents is utterly negligible. He would wish it to be so, and so would many hon. Members opposite. Their main desire is to get back to unrestricted private enterprise. We are to have certain Amendments which in practice amount to
nothing, but on the return that is to go to the speculator who builds houses there is to be no concession at all.
I do not approve very highly of the hon. Baronet's Amendment about reasonable rents. I do not know what reasonable rents are, and I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman has no view whatever about reasonable rents. They are the rents which a private builder can extract for the houses. I would have preferred something a little more definite. It is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to let loose private enterprise in the building of houses, subject to very ill-defined conditions, without any restrictions whatever as regards rents, and he tells the Committee that he honestly believes that this is a method of solving the housing problem. I am sorry that we cannot debate our own Amendment, but we are bound to go into the Lobby behind the hon. Baronet in support of his Amendment to get some control of the rents to be charged by private enterprise.

10.37 p.m.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) is unable to realise the conditions of private enterprise. It is true, as he says, that the Minister is resigning himself to the operations of private enterprise. We have made our choice and decided that building is now to be entrusted not to municipal enterprise with subsidies, but to private enterprise. Obviously there will be very little incentive to municipal authorities to build without subsidies. We have made that definite choice. It may be right or it may be wrong. In the opinion of hon. Members opposite it is wrong and in the opinion of us it is right. When a policy has been decided upon we must note the implications of it, and the implications are not merely the idea that private enterprise is going to plunder and to profiteer out of this business. That is guarded against in Clause 2, where the Minister and the local authorities may—it does not say must—guarantee, and they will only guarantee, presumably, in cases where they consider the scheme is justifiable.
The implication of private enterprise is that we must give it the very utmost encouragement. The minds of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his friends,
although I do not say it in any accusing spirit, have, since they were babies, been running on national, Socialistic, one might also say Communistic, lines, namely, forcing things into a rigid scheme. That is the absolute opposite of private enterprise, and therefore any criticism they make of private enterprise really fails to meet the case, for the very reason that the conditions of private enterprise, of freedom, are opposed to the whole basis of their ideas. They may be right. Their mentality we cannot understand, but their mentality may be right, although it brought this country to the brink of ruin in 1931.

Mr. LANSBURY: Rotherham.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) is wandering rather a long way from the subject of the Amendment.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: I beg your pardon, Captain Bourne. It is quite clear that if you are to apply private enterprise to the solution of this problem, even if you start from the point of view of the Socialist party, you must encourage it everywhere you can. We are distinctly imposing conditions already in the Bill, and they are implicit in the Clause by the fact that the local authorities and the Minister, have to approve a scheme. That being the case, you are not encouraging the private builder. Hon. members on the other side who maintain—and I trust to their genuineness in maintaining—that they are anxious that we shall make a success of this new idea in housing for the sake of the people, must combine with us in being anxious not to clip the wings of private enterprise more than is absolutely necessary. Any question that you are to have a rigid rule as regards rents, or any rigid figures, is against the theory upon which we are working to-night.
Private enterprise is a very delicate matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] Hon. Members know perfectly well that when they are dealing with their own rents which they have to pay, and with the other disbursements from their pockets, private enterprise is most delicate. It is capable of the greatest possible achievements as well as of the greatest possible failures. I maintain that the wider we extend the opportunities conferred by this Clause, the more likely it is we
shall be able to do what hon. Members on both sides of the Committee must wish, that is, to make a success of the new scheme of housing.

10.42 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: It is very entertaining that a very rigid trade unionist, a member of one of the most rigid trade unions in the country, should get up with such a defence of the system of free rents.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: On a point of personal explanation. May I say that I belong to no trade union, and that nothing is further from the thoughts of the medical profession than indulging in strikes?

Sir S. CRIPPS: There are other things besides strikes, but I will not chaff the hon. Member any further upon that point. He belongs to one of the closest unions in the country; unfortunately it will not affiliate with the Trades Union Congress. The claims of private enterprise failed years ago. I f we are to judge as between free rents and controlled rents, we are entitled to look round the country and see what has been done in the way of housing in the last 100 years, first of all by private enterprise and secondly by municipal enterprise. I guarantee that any hon. Member who makes an investigation into the two systems and their results, will indubitably come down on the side of municipal enterprise. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] Indubitably. Hon. Members may take London alone, and I will guarantee that if they look at the matter in an unbiased way, for example at the London County Council building schemes and compare those schemes with the slum areas of London which were built under private enterprise, they will come indubitably to the conclusion that municipal enterprise is better if one wants decent housing conditions.
The hon. Member said that this very delicate flower can only be nurtured provided that you give the maximum of profit, and that, therefore, you have to see that there is no means of regulating the rents at all. This flower can only thrive in a soil which has for its nourishment—[An HON. MEMBER: "Liberty !"] —complete liberty to exploit. But that is not what we call liberty. Liberty has
two sides. There is the liberty of the person who has to live in the house, as well as the liberty of the person who owns the house, and we are anxious to give the person who lives in the house some liberty as well as the person who owns the house. The House of Commons has constantly stated, ever since the War, that where there is a shortage of houses, as there is now, you must control rents or there is no liberty. The hon. Member says that private enterprise cannot stand that type of liberty. It is only one particular type of liberty that it can stand—liberty for the landlord or the owner to charge as much rent as he can force out of the tenant. We do not believe that to be right, especially when it is not unaided private enterprise. Under this Bill, powers are being taken to assist private enterprise at the cost of the State. That is one of the objects of the Bill. Apparently, this delicate flower can stand the State assistance on the one band, but it cannot stand any State control of its profits on the other.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: May I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that, as I said, there is a general control through the Minister and the local authority having to consent, because they do not have to contribute?

Sir S. CRIPPS: There is a general control, but there is very specific assistance, and that is the constant concomitant of private enterprise; it is always anxious and willing to take all it can, but it is never anxious or willing to give. In this case we believe that, if the State is going to be asked, as it is being asked, to shoulder some of the burden, those who constitute the State—the vast mass of them being tenants and not landlords—are entitled to say, "If we shoulder the burden of the expense, we make conditions," and one of those conditions, we believe, ought to be a reasonable rent. If private enterprise is so delicate that it cannot stand a reasonable rent, then the sooner it dies the better.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. CURRY: I want to ask the Minister one question before this discussion concludes. We have heard that the State has a general control, but, so far as I understand the Bill, the general control is only at the inception of the
proceedings—during the building of the houses; and those houses are to be built at the risk of State money or State credit. I would like to know from the Minister to what extent the control of the authority is going to live after the houses are built and occupied. Is there to be any control at all over the rents or over the ultimate destination of the houses? May the houses, having been built on the credit of the State, be sold in the market? May tenants who are unable to pay these uncontrolled rents be ejected; and what control has the State over these things?

Sir S. CRIPPS: None.

Mr. CURRY: I cannot accept the very ready answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am looking with some confidence to the contradiction of the Government. I should be much obliged if we could have some statement on this question.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I want to contradict the right hon. Gentleman who spoke with some confidence about municipal housing. If my experience counts, I know of houses that cost £1,100 to build that would be sold to-day for £300. It is futile to argue that, because houses have been built under municipal housing schemes with a subsidy in the last few years, that is any condemnation of houses built 50 or 100 years ago. I maintain that there can be no comparison and that, if the right hon. Gentleman had been sitting on the Treasury Bench at that time, he would not have put up houses of the standard we put up to-day. Progress has been made and there is a different outlook. In my judgment, it is totally unfair to compare those houses with houses built in the last few years.
As to the question whether those who build houses under this scheme are going to extort whatever they can get, I maintain that that also is an unfair argument. The building societies who will make the loans—the Bill will go through and we must argue on that basis—are not likely to risk their money on building houses to be let at rents too high for the people to afford to pay. These societies are run by business people. They are not going to give permission to build houses to be let at rents which the people cannot afford to pay. The guarantee that there
will be reasonable rent is the fact that all concerned have their money at stake. This is mere political propaganda to suggest that the people who build these houses will get a rent which the people cannot afford to pay. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. They cannot argue that the houses will be let at rents that people cannot afford to pay, and that it is extortionate. If they cannot let them, they will not be able to extort the rent.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I never said they would not be let because the rent would be too high. I said that they would extort the highest rent they could.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to realise that it is not possible for any private trader to dictate to the community as a community or as individuals what they should pay. Even with the low prices to-day, you cannot tell people what they must pay. That is decided by the people in their demand. I may remind him that there are such private schemes as Port Sunlight and the Welwyn Estate which compare very favourably with anything that municipal enterprise has done. The result of municipal enterprise has been to give people houses at a rent they cannot afford to pay, and in the City of Bradford with a. 5d. rate in addition. It is not fair to use this as an opportunity for mere Socialist propaganda and to compare municipal enterprise with private enterprise unless private enterprise is given a fair chance.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: The hon. Member has waxed very wrathful about political propaganda, and I should like to give the Committee my experience. If he will come to Bow to-morrow, I will take him through streets and show him houses which have been decontrolled and show him the results of decontrol, where people are having to pay key money, sometimes as much as £10, in order to get any accommodation at all. There are hundreds of these houses in my division owned by people who never come near them but employ people to farm them out and squeeze as much as they can out of the unfortunate tenants. The hon. Member talks about a 5d. rate. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) knows
that a 5d. rate for building houses fit for people to live in saves a 5d. rate on the health services of any district in London.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Not necessarily.

Mr. LANSBURY: Yes, necessarily so. I have heard the hon. and gallant Gentleman make similar statements himself and he knows perfectly well, if he knows anything at all, that bad housing and moral conditions create the necessity for the clinics and health services which have to be provided in slum areas. The hon. Member for Bradford, too, can come to Poplar and see where we have built by municipal enterprise homes that did cost £1,100. They cost that immediately after the War when the Government, instead of taking control of prices, shovelled out the money to contractors and others who became very rich out of it. It was not the fault of the municipalities but of those in control nationally, who did not control prices. [Interruption.] Addison or anyone else. Anyhow he was cheered and supported by die hon. Member's Friends until he saw the light and left them. It is sheer idiocy to use that as any argument against municipal building. The hon. Member talked about new methods that had come into private enterprise. I can take him to houses built within the last 20 years by private enterprise which are let at higher rents than those charged by the Poplar Borough Council or the London County Council though they do not compare at all with them. I can also show him rows of houses which would all fall down if you took one out of the middle. Many of them have not

been built 40 years. They are on made up land which has never properly settled.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is getting rather far from the Amendment.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am only tempted to do this because of the lecture we have received from the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth). These houses, which are at Hackney Wick, are a disgrace to any builder or any society that allowed them to be built. When you talk to me of private enterprise and what private enterprise has done, go and look at the back-to-back dwellings in your own city, and in the City of Leeds and the City of Birmingham, all of them built by private enterprise and by men who were not ashamed to squeeze extortionate rents out of the necessities of the very poorest of the community. They are being built to-day. A slum does not necessarily mean a narrow street. A slum is created by extortionate rents, when you squeeze people and pack families into one or two rooms because they cannot afford to pay more. I have listened to a good many Debates in this House, but this Debate taken part in by the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his assistant has more than convinced me that private enterprise as far as housing is concerned has neither a leg nor a brick to stand upon.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 44; Noes, 165.

Division No. 58.]
AYES.
[11.2 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Milner, Major James


Banfield. John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Batey, Joseph
Griffith, F. Kingaley (Middlesbro', W.)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Price, Gabriel


Buchanan, George
Hicks, Ernest George
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Daggar, George
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L,
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
McGovern, John
Sir Percy Harris and Mr. Curry.


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Balniel, Lord
Blindell, James


Albery, Irving James
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)
Borodale, Viscount


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Bossom, A. C.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M, (Hackney, N.)
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ray, Sir William


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Raid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Jackson, J. C. (Hey wood & Radcliffe)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T,
Jones, Sir O. W. H. (Moke New'gton)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Burghley, Lord
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Robinson, John Roland


Butt, Sir Alfred
Ker, j. Campbell
Ropner, Colonel L.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Lamb, Sir Jaseph Quinton
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Carver, Major William H
Law, Sir Alfred
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Cassels, James Date
Law. Richard K, (Hull, S.W.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Llverp'l)


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Salmon, Sir Isldore


Christie, James Archibald
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Salt, Edward W.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Levy, Thomas
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Conant, R. J. E.
Liddall, Walter S.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cooke, Douglas
Lindsay, Nool Ker
Sandarsan, Sir Prank Barnard


Craven-Ellis, William
Llewellin, Major John J.
Savory, Samuel Servington


Croom-Johnson, B. P.
Loutr, Captala J. de Vere
Scone, Lord


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Parttok)
Selley, Harry R.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Dormer, P. W.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Drewe, Cedric
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradestat)
Smith, Sir Jonab W. (Barrow-In-F.)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Duncan, James A. U. (Kensington, N.)
Magnay, Thomas
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)


Edge, Sir William
Maitland, Adam
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Staoley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Elmley, Viscount
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R
Storey, Samuel


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
May hew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Meller, Richard James
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Everard, W. Lindsay
Milne, Charles
Sutcliffe, Harold


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Mitcheson, G. G.
Templeton. William P.


Fox, Sir Gifford
Marson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Moss, Captale H. J.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Ganzonl, Sir John
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Gluckstein, Louis Halls
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Goldie, Noel B.
Nunn, William
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rt'd, N.)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Graves, MarJorle
Palmer, Francis Noel
Wells, Sydney Richard


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Pearson, William G.
Weymouth, Viscount


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Petherick, M
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Hanbury, Cecil
Peto, Geoffrey K.(Wverh'pt'n, Bllston)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Potter, John
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Wise, Alfred R.


Holdsworth, Herbert
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Young. Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Hornby, Frank
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Islet)



Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Horobin, Ian M.
Rankin, Robert
Commander Southby and Dr. Morris-Jones.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
We on this side of the Committee understood that although the Eleven o'Clock Rule has been suspended it was not proposed to finish the Bill to-night. That was our impression, and I should like to know how far the right hon. Gentleman proposes to go.

Sir H. YOUNG: There is a good deal of matter still on the Order Paper, but its nature is such that the Committee ought not to take any prolonged time in dealing with it. As a matter of fact, it is my intention to accept some of the Amendments, and others, to an onlooker, seem as if they may not be in order. Indeed, the points raised by the remaining Amendments are such that they may he dealt with in a comparatively short
time, and I think we may be able to finish them.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

11.14 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, at the end, to insert the words:
 Provided that any proposals made to the Minister under this Section shall—

(a) include such particulars as he may direct as to the number and type of the houses intended to be built or acquired and the approximate size of them measured in superficial feet; and
(b) make provision for securing that, except in so far as the Minister may in any particular case dispense with the requirements of this paragraph, the number of such houses in relation to the area occupied or intended to be occupied by and in connection with them will not exceed the rate of 12 to the acre."
My object in moving this Amendment is to bring the 'Bill into line with the Acts of 1923 and 1924. I am showing my confidence in the right hon. Gentleman by giving him these large powers. We may criticise him, but I am satisfied that if he has these powers he will endeavour to see that not too many houses are built to the acre, that the principle of 12 per acre will be adhered to, except a very strong case is made to the contrary. Secondly, that he will see that the right type of house is provided for in any scheme which comes before him. The Amendment does not go quite as far as I should desire, but I think it does provide some security that this Bill will not repeat the disasters of the nineteenth century and perpetrate what the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) described as long roads of mean dull streets which disfigure most of our towns. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to accept the Amendment.

11.16 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member's anticipations are correct. I propose to ask the Committee to accept this Amendment. The first part deals only with information which is necessary to enable the Minister to form a judgment of the nature of the application and quite appropriate for him to be entitled to receive as a statutory right. The second part deals in particular with the reenactment, as a standard, of the density of 12 houses to the acre, except in so far as the Minister may, in any particular case, dispense with that requirement. I have already told the House that it is not the policy of the Government, as a part of the new organisation of housing, to assent to any relaxation of the general standards of national housing. If that is so, I think it would be quite appropriate that we should signalise the fact by re-inserting this definite standard of 12 houses to the acre in the new Bill. Nevertheless, it is true to say that it is necessary that the Minister should have power in any particular case to make a relaxation of that standard. There are cases in which, in order to obtain the housing which the people require, it is necessary that the standard should be relaxed. Otherwise, the houses cannot be obtained at the rents
which people can pay. In spite of the relaxation of the standard a lay-out can be obtained which is proper, seemly and good.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. HICKS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end, to add the words:
 and
(c) make provision for securing that in the case of houses to be built a fair-wages clause which complies with the requirements of any Resolution of the House of Commons applicable to contracts of Government Departments and for the time being in force, is inserted in all contracts or agreements for advances between the society and its members, and in all contracts for the construction of the houses.
I was very pleased to hear the Minister agree to accept the Amendment of the lion. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). I am encouraged to think that he will also agree to accept the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, which is a serious proposition and one which I think the Committee will be well advised to accept. Apparently there are no provisions in the Bill for fair wages to be recognised in the construction of the houses. The history of the struggle for a standard rate of wage is a very long one.
I hope that in this Bill we shall have some provision to carry out what has been the recognised practice in regard to the wages and conditions usually observed between good employers and trade unions, or, where there is no organisation, the wages and conditions applied by the best type of employer in a district. The old theory of long hours and low wages has proved uneconomic and has been found by experience to minimise the capacity for production and injure the health and physique of the workers. I hope that we shall take advantage of the experience gained in a great industrial country like ours and that in this legislation we shall recognise a principle which has been established for many years and has become a part of the fabric of our social and industrial life. As I hope that the Minister is not unwilling to give this proposal his consideration, I shall not at present go further into the arguments in favour of it.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that it would be better, first to dispose of the
Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) and, if it is accepted by the Committee, the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) can then move to add the words which he has indicated.

11.22 p.m.

Lord E. PERCY: Perhaps the Committee will allow me to make a protest, even if it is only a solitary protest, against putting into the Bill words of the kind suggested by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). The first part of his Amendment provides that the Minister may direct that information shall be given in a certain form. Of course if the Minister has to approve of proposals, he can make that approval conditional on having the information submitted to him. The second part says that the Minister shall make provision for securing certain things
 except in so far as the Minister may in any particular case dispense with the requirements of this paragraph.
I am not going to return to the argument about private enterprise. It may be efficient or inefficient. It may require the strictest control exercised by the law of the land and the Minister over all its operations. But to pursue the course of putting up a most imposing-looking and menacing paling and then saying, "My dear fellow, you need not mind. It is only cardboard and not wood after all" —that is a degrading business for this House to engage in and I protest against it.

11.24 p.m.

Sir J. WALKER SMITH: I entirely agree with the protest which has just been made. There seems to be an almost insatiable desire to impose restrictions and to secure control and this Amendment represents a further endeavour to prevent anyone endeavouring to build any houses under this Clause. It is entirely unnecessary. I doubt if there will be very much done under the provisions of this Clause. Certainly, if there are many more efforts to impose additional control and further restrictions, the Clause will prove a complete fallacy. No one will do anything at all under it.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member had better reserve these remarks until we come to the Question "That the Clause stand part."
Amendment agreed to.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. HICKS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, after the words last inserted, to insert the words:
and
(c) make provision for securing that in the case of houses to be built a fair-wages Clause which complies with the requirements of any Resolution of the House of Commons applicable to contracts of Government Departments, and for the time being in force, is inserted in all contracts or agreements for advances between the society and its members, and in all contracts for the construction of the houses.
I will move that formally.

11.26 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: On this matter of a fair wages clause, there is no intention at all on the part of the Government of making any breach in the defences of that clause or any departure from the principles accepted by the House, which, as we know, are embraced in a famous Resolution of the House. The question is of their proper adaptation to the actual business which we have now in contemplation. The wording of the Amendment presents difficulties, because it refers to contracts, and, as a matter of fact, in many cases there will be no contracts at all in which the fair wages clause can be inserted. It will simply be a case of the builder constructing houses for himself, so that we must look for some other method of doing what we want to do. Again, I would remind the Committee that it has never been the practice of this House to enact the insertion of the fair wages clause in contracts other than those made actually by public authorities. Here we have no contracts made actually by public authorities.
I have been looking to see what the precedents are for the way in which the clause is made as operative as possible under these conditions, and I find that the most appropriate precedent is in the Circular of the 2nd September, 1911. That is a Circular issued by the Local Government Board, in which the strongest possible emphasis was placed upon this clause and the strangest possible recommendation given to local
authorities to embody the clause in their contracts. I suggest to the hon. Member that, instead of dealing With the matter in the way proposed by the Amendment, which cannot be done on account of the absence of contracts, we should deal with it, on the precedent of that Circular, by my Making now the statement that I will address a, similar Circular to local authorities for the same purpose and to the same effect as the Circular of September, 1911, in order to exercise the best influence that can be exercised to maintain the operation of the fair wages clause.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. HICKS: While thanking the Minister for saying what he has, I am hopeful that, before finally disposing of this matter, he will be able to agree to make it still further effective than it would be made by despatching the Circular, which is very important. There is the case which occurs to my mind Wherein a builder, in tin arrangement between himself and a building society, borrows the money and builds, and there is no Contract. It was to meet that case that the words of the Amendment Were specially designed. Unless, Something of this kind is done the best employers Will be greatly handicapped, and the work will go to the jerrybuilders Who, in the main, disregard the best conditions of labour. Unless provision is Made for the observance of fair wages and Conditions, the Minister will have diluted labour. that Means diluted houses, and the complaint as to

demarcation and bad workmanship will express itself in Many directions. We know the type of person who thinks that the building industry offers opportunities not offered by other industries. A man wins a cross-word puzzle and sets up as a builder, violating all the conditions that have been recognised in the industry. We want to eliminate that type of person. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will see his way clear to make the observance of the fair wages clause more certain than it will be by a circular to the authorities; for, however strong the moral appeal of a circular, it will not be sufficient.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: Would it not be possible between now and the Report stage to reconsider the wording of the Amendment There is a provision in an earlier Act similar to this, and am sure that, if the Minister agrees to the general principle behind the Amendment, he can easily frame a form of words that would Meet the situation. The issue of a circular is perhaps a good thing, but it does not bind anybody. It might be observed by builders of the best type, but unfortunately there is a set of people who cannot be trusted to do anything decent if there is a possibility of getting an extra shilling by doing otherwise. That is the type against whom we want to guard the good builder.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 34; Noes, 142.

Division No. 59.]
AYES.
[11.35 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar South.)
Grenfell David Rees (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W.B., Normanton)
Price, Gabriel


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Batey, Joseph
Hieks, Ernest George
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Sir Jonah W (Barrow-In-F.)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Lan'sbu'r'y, St. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Cape, Thomas
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ognore)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Logah, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Crippe, Sir Stafford
Lunn, William



Daggar, George
McEntee, Valentine' L
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Davies, David E (Pontypridd)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. Gordon Macdonald,


Edward's. Charles
Milner, Major James



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Nathan, Major H. L.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bossom, A.C.
Burghley, Lord


Albery, Irving Jambs
Bowyer Capt. Sir George. E. W.
But, Sir Alfred


Aske, Sir Robert William
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)


Balniel, Lord
Broadbent, Colonel John
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Banks, Sir Robert Wiliam
Broadbent, C. E. R.
Castlereagh, Viscount


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Brawn Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Browne, Captain A. C.
Christie, James Archibald


Borodale, Viscount
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Colfox, Major William Phillp


Conant, a. J. E.
Leech, Dr. I. W.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Cooke, Douglas
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Craven-Ellis, William
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Robinson, John Roland


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Levy, Thomas
Ropner, Colonel L.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Liddall, Walter S. 
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Donner, P. W.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Drewe, Cedric
Llewellin. Major John J.
Russell, Alexander Weil (Tynemouth)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Loder, Captain J. de Vera
Salmon, Sir Isldore


Edge, Sir William 
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Salt, Edward W.


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
McKeag, William
Sandeman, sir A. N. Stewart


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Savery, Samuel Servington


Easenhigh, Reginald Clare
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Selley, Harry R.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


fielden, Edward Brocklchurst
Magnay, Thomas
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Fox, Sir Gilford
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Skalton, Archibald Noel


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Goldle, Noel B.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Storey, Samuel


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mitcheson, G. G.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Graham, Sir F, Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Graves, Marjorie
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nunn, William
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Vaunhan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Hanbury, Cecil
Pearson, William G.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Hannon. Patrick Joseph Henry
Percy, Lord Eustace
Weymouth, Viscount


Heilgers, Captain F, F. A.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P
Petherick, M.
Wills, Wilfrid O


Holdsworth, Herbert
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Wilton, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Hornby, Frank
Potter, John
Wise, Alfred R.


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ramsay, T, B. W. (Western Isles)
Womersley, Walter James


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Rankin, Robert
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Ratcliffe, Arthur



Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ray, Sir William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ker, J. Campbell
Rea, Walter Russell
Sir Victor Warrender and Captain Austin Hudson.


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)



Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)

11.43 p.m.

Mr. C. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, after the words last inserted, to insert the words:
and
(c) make provision for securing that the houses are or will be fitted with modern requirements and at least equal in hygienic standards to houses built in accordance with the provisions of the Housing, etc., Act, 1923, or the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924.
The purpose of this Amendment is to try to maintain the standards which have already been set up ii municipal houses subsidised by the State. It is- necessary that some such words as these should be inserted because of what has already been said by the Minister. Apparently, apart from the minimum size of the houses, we have no guarantee about decent size, or density, after what has happened on the Amendment to which these words are to be added, and we have no guarantee on the question of rents. In the absence of all these real guarantees we feel that these words are necessary, in order that the amenities and hygienic standards of subsidised houses may be preserved in this adventure on which private enterprise is being
asked by the Government to embark. Those of us who have put down this Amendment, and all who sit on these benches, have in mind the preservation of certain standards which have come into existence relatively recently. We are thinking of certain kinds of interior fittings like cupboards and what are sometimes called dressers, of proper ventilation, decent skirting boards, picture rails, and so on. We do not want houses which are merely four brick walls, on some parts of which there is not even plastering. We want houses that are really worthy of the name. If we are merely going to turn this matter over to private enterprise in the way suggested by the Government, and to give that freedom in regard to the whole matter to which I have already referred in connection with size, density and rents, many of the things to which we have become accustomed are likely to go, and there is every reason to believe that other things will go too. Consequently, the insertion of some such words as these is necessary at this place.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: We all want the best standard of houses that we, can get,
but I assure the hon. Member that the things of which he has spoken would not be covered by his Amendment. He has already all the things that it covers, with one exception. There is already provision for a minimum floor space, and on the question of density. The only other hygienic standard under the Acts of 1923 and 1924 is in relation to baths, and that we are going to discuss in a moment on the next Amendment.

11.48 p.m.

Mr. HICKS: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether there is complete provision in the Bill so far as cubic air space is concerned. Sometimes, with a view to economy, the roof is brought down into the bedrooms instead of being kept out of them. You may have the standard floor space, but it is necessary also to have a guarantee as to the height of the ceilings on the ground floor and on the bedroom floor, so that the cubic air space may be maintained, and it appears to me that that point is not covered.

The CHAIRMAN: I ought to have warned the hon. Gentleman that I do not propose to call the next Amendment.

11.49 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I have been struggling all the evening, on Clause 2, to get the spirit of the Act of 1923 into this Measure. I remember the tremendous fight that we had then for the very modest requirement of a fixed bath. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in the House at that time, but we certainly converted the then Minister of Health, who is now Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the bath has become a sort of symbol of civilisation. It may be that some people regard baths as a luxury, but I regard them as a necessity. I want the Parliamentary Secretary, as a symbol of his administration at the Ministry of Health, to get baths into this Bill somehow or other, so that every house that comes into being under the Bill may have that very pleasant amenity, a real bath.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say that the Minister was prepared to accept this Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think he said anything of the kind. Otherwise I should not have said what I said.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: What I said was that hon. Gentlemen have already got nine-tenths of what they want. The only thing that they have not got is the bathroom. I agree that we should all like to see them provided everywhere, but there are cases where you cannot do it. I could give one case in a rural area where you could not give a bath, because, if you did, you would have no water to put into it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] In a rural area. Obviously, with such exceptions, these houses will have baths, because a local authority would not guarantee houses unless they are all of a decent standard and with a bath. In such exceptional cases in a rural area you cannot put in a bath, for if you do you cannot get water in it because there is no water laid on. That is why we cannot accept this Amendment in this form. As hon. Gentlemen have already got nine-tenths of what they want, I hope that they will not press the Amendment.

11.52 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I really do not wish to describe a bathroom as a red herring, and our Amendment may be entirely wrong and may have no point, but I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary, by raising this question of the bath, is dealing with an entirely different point. It may be competent for him to argue that this Amendment is absurd and ridiculous and that by the good will of the Minister we have got nine-tenths of what we want, but there is nothing in this which deals with the question of baths. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary is really not dealing with the Amendment at all, but is trying to prepudice the case for the next Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is now dealing with the question of water, and, in these circumstances, I must rule that the Parliamentary Secretary was in order, because in my opinion the insertion of a bath in most houses is in accordance with modern requirements.

11.53 p.m.

Mr. LEVY: I only intervene because I think the Parliamentary Secretary has
admitted the inadequacy of the water supply. Therefore, I say that it is time that we had an adequate water supply in all these areas, whether for building or for any other purpose. It is not unreasonable to ask that we should have an adequate water supply and that the provision of bathrooms in any houses should not be ruled out because of the inadequacy of the water supply.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: The Parliamentary Secretary's argument is a most extraordinary one. It is that you cannot insert these words because there are areas in the country in rural districts in which, because there is an inadequate water supply, it would be of no use to fix baths in houses. The Clause to which this is an addition does not pretend to deal with rural areas at all. This is a. Bill to provide houses, not for agricultural labourers, but in urban districts. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) pointed out in his speech earlier in the afternoon, building societies in rural areas are unheard of, and nobody knows what they mean. There is not the slightest idea that building societies will be called upon to advance money for building, by private enterprise, houses to house the agricultural labourer. They cannot do it at a price at which agricultural labourers can hire the houses, and the intention of the Bill is not that houses should be provided under it for that purpose at all. The purpose of the Bill is that houses should be provided at approximately 12s. rent in urban areas where the whole question of the water supply is solved. There is a water supply and there is not the slightest reason why provision for a fixed bath should not be inserted in the Clause. I cannot believe there is a single Member of the 'Committee who thinks the hon. Gentleman's reason an adequate one. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) that we should as far as possible preserve the standard that this House set up in 1923 and 1924. There is not the slightest doubt that even during these 10 years a bathroom has become a genuine necessity and not, as it was to some extent in some areas, a luxury. Even in rural areas tenants are now asking their landlords to insert baths, having learnt from others and from their own experience that the possession of a bathroom is practically a neces-
sity of life. If the Minister will speak on the Amendment, I feel sure he will give us more satisfaction, because he must know that the Bill is not intended to apply to rural areas at all, and that in urban areas a fixed bath is an obvious necessity. To omit it from the Bill will tend to degrade the general standard of housing, which I am sure he wishes to preserve as much as any of us.

11.59 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The Parliamentary Secretary is getting deeper and deeper into difficulties. He said nine-tenths of the difficulty had been met, the other tenth being the bath. That is his standard of values. Then we are told it will be all right because of the guarantees. I do not believe in the slightest degree in the effectiveness of the guarantees. This Bill will not work unless the private builder gets his way. The private builders' view of what the working class family needs is not the view of enlightened Members of this House. Master builders think houses 40 to the acre are excellent. They do not agree with the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Johnstone) that people need to wash themselves all over at one time.
There is an illustration of this point of view. It is a matter which has been fought out on the Floor of the House of Commons. If I remember rightly—I have not looked up the Debates—in the Housing Bill of 1923 we had a struggle to get a fixed bath. I remember that some of us who sat upon this side of the House then and many hon. Gentlemen who sat upon the opposite side fought against those who were very reluctant to admit the common right of mankind living in civilised dwellings to have a fixed bath. I did not agree with that view of the fixed bath at the time, and we know now that there are thousands of houses up and down the country where the fixed bath is put into the scullery or below the kitchen hearth, and, in some cases, even in an outhouse. In 1924 I remember that we kept the House very late one night, long after 11 o'clock, when an hon. Member, who is now a member of the House of Lords, fought the proposal that the fixed bath should be in a bathroom. A revolution! We kept the House for two hours debating the simple point as to whether the fixed bath should be in a bathroom. In 1924
we insisted upon getting rid of the abomination of a bathroom which was also a scullery, kitchen and a living room. It has been imposed since 1924 in the case of every house built under any kind of housing. Now we are to rely upon a guarantee. I suggest that this is not good enough. It is on record that the people who will build these houses and who will get the guarantees from the building societies—and I am bound to say that in this matter, as regards amenities, I do not trust either the building societies or the Minister, unless he gives us his word in writing in the Bill—will interfere with these amenities. I am bound to say that those things are now to go.
It is very reasonable to suggest that, if there is to be any shadow of a State or a municipal guarantee, or any kind of public recognition of the houses being built, they should conform to modern standards, one of the most elementary of them being the one-tenth of which the Parliamentary Secretary is in doubt. If there is any shadow of public responsibility the question, not merely of a fixed bath, but of a fixed bath in a bathroom, ought to be admitted in all houses. If that is not done, what will happen? The right hon. Gentleman has complained that he could not keep an eye on the

rents of all the houses built for all time. Is he going to keep an eye at all on the houses which are to be built? Of course, he is not, unless there is some legal sanction which will establish quite definitely that houses shall conform to a definite standard. I hope that the Committee will not agree to the proposition to leave to the whim of speculative builders, with company promoters in the background, through the Minister, the understandings and possible guarantees, and will not allow the particular abuse which the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Johnstone) has mentioned to assert itself. A fixed bath—and I would say in a bathroom—is an essential to civilised life. If the Amendment is rejected, however badly it may be worded, the Committee will have missed the point raised by the Parliamentary Secretary. I cannot think that this House, after the struggles in 1923 and 1924, even with this reversion to private enterprise, is going back. What was fought for in 1923 and 1924 ought to be good enough to-day and I hope that hon. Members will follow us into the Lobby in support of the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 40; Noes, 135.

Division No. 60.]
AYES.
[12.6 a.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Milner, Major James


Banfield. John William
Harris, Sir Percy
Nathan, Major H. L.


Sevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hicks, Ernest George
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Price, Gabriel


Cape, Thomas
Janner, Barnett
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Rea, Walter Russell


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Curry, A. C.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Logan, David Gilbert



Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
He Entee, Valentine L.
Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr.


Greniell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McKeag, William
Duncan Graham.


Griffith, F. Klngsley (Middlesbro',W.)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut. Colonel
Browne, Captain A. C.
Culverwell, Cyril Tom


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Donner, P. W.


Albery, Irving James
Burghley, Lord
Drewe, Cedric


Aske, Sir Robert William
Burnett, John George
Duckworth, George A. V.


Balniel, Lord
Butt, Sir Alfred
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington. N.)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Carver, Major William H.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Blindell, James
Castlereagh, Viscount
Fielden, Edward Brocktehurst


Borodale, Viscount
Chapman, Col.R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Fox, Sir Gifford


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Fremantle, Sir FrancTs


Braithwalte. J. G. (Hillsborough)
Christie, James Archibald
Gluckstein, Louis Haile


Broadbent, Colonel John
Collox, Major William Philip
Goldie, Noel B.


Brockleback, C. E. R.
Conant, R. J. E.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Cooks, Douglas
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Savery, Samuel Servington


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Scone, Lord


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Hanley, Dennis A.
Nunn, William
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)
Pearson, William G.
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Perkins, Walter R. O.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Petherick, M.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Ker, J. Campbell
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Biltt'n)
Storey, Samuel


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Potter, John
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ramsay, T. B. w. (Western Isles)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Levy, Thomas
Rankin, Robert
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Liddall, Walter S.
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Turton, Robert Hugh


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ray, Sir William
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Llewellin, Major John J.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, CJ
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Renwick. Major Gustav A.
Wells, Sydney Richard


MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Weymouth, Viscount


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Robinson, John Roland
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, s.)


McKie, John Hamilton
Ropner. Colonel L.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Range, Norah Cecil
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Wise, Alfred R.


Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Womersley, Walter James


Magnay, Thomas
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Llverp'l)
Young, Rt. Hon.Sir Hilton(S'v'noaks)


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Salmon, Sir Isidore



Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Salt, Edward W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putner)
Major George Davies and Dr.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Morris-Jones.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 25.

use 3 (Citation and extent), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE.—(Applicants with families.)

Any proposal made by a local authority to the Minister for a guarantee under Section 2 of this Act shall provide that applicants with families shall have precedence in allocating houses, and no reimbursement shall be made under Section 2 of this Act unless such provision shall have been carried out.—[Sir P. Harris.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

12.22 a.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This proposed New Clause embodies an important principle, especially when we have to deal with private enterprise. The real struggle in housing matters is to provide houses for families. Unfortunately, it very often happens that, because of the conditions imposed by a landlord, houses are let to households without children. Everybody knows that there is a tendency to give preference to the small family or to applicants with no families. I appreciate that there might be administrative difficulties, but I hope that it may be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give us an assurance that he has already worked out the possibility of making regulations to carry out the purpose that I have in mind.
My trouble is that I do not see that the Minister, under the present wording of the Bill, has any way of "following up" the houses. After they have been constructed and the building societies have given the financial assistance, the houses, as far as I can see, pass out of the ken of the Ministry of Health and of the local authorities. There is certainly no security in the wording of the Bill that applicants with families should occupy the houses, and the proposed New Clause is an attempt to provide such security. If I can get a promise from the Minister that there will be some kind
of machinery for securing this purpose, I do not propose to press the Clause.

12.24 a.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I should like my final gesture to-night to be one of assent and not of dissent, but I am afraid that in this case I can only try to make what must, fundamentally, be a gesture of dissent as much like a gesture of assent as I can. Every hon. Member will sympathise with the intention of the hon. Baronet, which is that the houses ought to be as fully occupied as can be. He asks what assurance I can give him. I think the practical assurance that will be satisfactory to the hon. Baronet is that, in considering the conditions of the demand, and the nature of the satisfaction of the demand as specified in the application for guarantee, the Minister will look to the fulfilment of the purpose that the houses shall be as fully occupied as possible and that accommodation shall be found for large families. Unless these useful purposes are served by the houses that it is proposed to build under the guarantee, the assistance contained in the guarantee will not be provided. That is as far as it is possible to go, within the structure of the present Bill.
The proposed clause itself might be amended because, as the hon. Baronet proposes it, it renders itself liable to some of those strictures already cited by the Noble Lord, the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), and it could not amount to anything practical in administration. In our administration it has been found impossible to impose a condition in the manner in which this clause suggests. A fortiori, it would be impossible to impose it in the case of the present Bill. That is the practical assurance that I can give the hon. Baronet as to the spirit of the administration.

12.27 a.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's spirit and his
assurances. They are an indication to the Committee of the difference of principle between the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters, on the one hand, and some of us on these benches. There must be a certain standard of public honour and of public spirit in the building interests. The right hon. Gentleman, having to choose between housing being carried on under the eye of public authorities, and by private enterprise, chooses private enterprise, and then defends his position by saying, "Well, in view of the circumstances, I cannot guarantee that the houses will be let and will conform to certain standards, or that they shall be let to people of a particular kind." There is an administrative difficulty. Houses that were built by the local authorities under the Acts of 1923 and 1924, except those that were built for sale under the 1923 Act, remain under the public authority. It may be that they are not able to live up to the standards of 1924, but where there is a, sense of responsibility there is the endeavour to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman is going to give some guarantees at a small cost to his Department and to the Exchequer and is going to launch houses built by private enterprise. Once those houses are built, he is finished with them. It is that kind of thing that has been one of the causes of our difficulties to-day. Even if we agree that all the houses used to be built by private enterprise, it remains true that if they had been under effective public control the housing problem to-day would not be so serious as it is. The right hon. Gentleman is going to let loose this unrestricted private enterprise again, without any vestige of control. He tells the hon. Baronet that their intentions are the same. I cannot agree. Unless I misunderstood the hon. Baronet, he wants to see the houses fully occupied. One of the difficulties is that houses are much too fully occupied. There is no guarantee in this Bill that the houses are to be built in accordance with local requirements. You need a number of houses for aged persons; you need a number of small houses for those who prefer non-parlour houses, and who would prefer to spend their money on other luxuries.
You need a number of houses for those who prefer parlour houses, and people with large families who desire a house of the maximum size allowed by the law. Under this Bill there is no guarantee that you are going to get any such thing at all.
Unless there is some kind of restriction, the chances are that the builders will build the smallest, cheapest and meanest type of house, knowing quite well that they will be able to let them to families much too large for houses of that kind. I know that there are difficulties in the way of administration, difficulties not created by those on this side of the House, but by the Minister who has sold the pass in this business. In spite of these difficulties, there ought to be some legislative provision that the smallest type of house is not going to be the standard type of house. There should be provision for houses of larger size. I hope that the hon. Baronet will stand by his Clause. The Minister having given away almost every vestige of control, we ought to stand by the principle of some kind of control by some public authority over the size and type of house.

12.32 a.m.

Miss RATHBONE: It is common form to express surprise and regret when the Minister refuses to accept a proposal which we want him to accept. I feel that I cannot conform to that tradition, because nothing would have surprised me more than if the Minister had said that he intended to accept this Clause. Every time that we have asked him for any security, or certainty, that the houses, which are to be built out of public money by private enterprise, should be used for the purposes we desire—that they should be used to provide housing for the poorer working classes, he has provided us with good intentions. He has the good intention to see that the people who ask for his assistance have the good intention to let the houses to these people, but when we ask for something more than intention he always tells us he has no machinery. He has made it perfectly clear—if we ever had any doubt we have so no longer—that private enterprise can say it intends to let the houses to working-class persons, but it is not even asked if it intends to let the houses at a reasonable rent. Private enterprise is only asked to express an intention, and if it changes
that intention five minutes later it will be quite all right. Is it likely, therefore, that the Minister would have taken the more difficult step of accepting the principle put forward in this Clause, that private enterprise, having built a house, shall proceed to allocate that house by preference to people with families?
As the last speaker has said, it will be a troublesome Clause to carry out. I wish it were possible to carry out the principle. Of course we know that the actual result will be just the opposite. It is quite certain that these houses, built under a guarantee and with the aid of public funds, will be let on a definite principle which will be the opposite to that laid down in this Clause. Preference will be given to the couple of elderly spinsters, because private enterprise prefers such as these to the man with three, five or seven children who has that number of reasons for not paying his rent when unemployed. Private enterprise will seek the highest possible return in working under an Act which puts up barriers against indulging in that desire which some of us have. I would have been surprised if the right hon. Gentleman had given way on this Clause, because he has been so out of consonance with the atmosphere of these Acts. I do not believe that the control would have been anything more than a kind of sham, but I will vote for the Clause to assert my belief in the principle. There is a sort of poetic consistency in the last Division which we shall take to-night, because it shows us the flaws in this most detestable Measure.

12.38 a.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I agree with the new Clause, and I am surprised at the Minister rejecting it. I said at an earlier stage in the evening that the Bill is obviously an attempt to allow private enterprise to exploit the public, especially that section of the public least able to bear exploitation. Further, the rejection of this new Clause means that the Minister must know that the builders responsible for the letting of the houses will be able to choose their tenants and, naturally, they will choose those tenants best able to pay rent quite irrespective of whether they have families or not. The probability is, as has been said by
the hon. Lady who has just spoken, that people who have large families—and the general rule is that people with large families are much more liable to be unable to pay their rents—will get little consideration from the owners of these new houses who are to receive public guarantees from the local authorities and His Majesty's Government.
The Minister has shown, in this regard and in all others, his keen desire to allow private enterprise to find a new field for making profit. Practically every vestige of public control, very essential for the welfare of the people, is to be lost. That means that all the efforts made by housing experts in recent years, and all those who desire to see the people of this country reasonably well housed, have been blocked. The Minister has driven us back to a state little in advance of that at the end of the War, when private enterprise gave us the slums which we possess to-day. Some time in the future, when we have other Rotherham election and some more General Elections, the people will come back to their senses and discover that the mistake they made at the last General Election is finding expression in the Bills which we are now considering. They will unfortunately be compelled to submit to that exploitation until an opportunity occurs for housing authorities, housing experts, and housing enthusiasts to rebuild the housing position that has been destroyed by the Minister in this Bill. I think that this Bill is—

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The Clause only deals with the allotment of houses.

Mr. McENTEE: I am dealing with the allotment of houses under this Bill, and I regard it as one of its worst features. The Bill will prevent the people most in need of houses, those with large families, from getting houses, and it will enable the exploiters to exploit those people to a greater degree. At some future time those of us who have been serious in our attempt to get decent housing for the people to live in will be sorry that we have ever had a Minister and a Government that passed this Bill.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 30; Noes, 134.

Division No. 61.]
AYES.
[12.15 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rankin, Robert


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Harris, Sir Percy
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Albery, Irving James
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ray. Sir William


Aske, Sir Robert William
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rea, Walter Russell


Balniel, Lord
Horsbrugh. Florence
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney. N.)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Janner, Barnett
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Blindell, James
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Robinson, John Roland


Borodale, Viscount
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ropner, Colonel L


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Ker, J. Campbell
Runge, Norah Cecil


Broadbent, Colonel John
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Brocktebank, C. E. R.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Browne. Captain A. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Llverp'l)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Burghley, Lord
Levy, Thomas
Salt, Edward W.


Burnett, John George
Liddall, Walter S.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Llewellin, Major John J.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Scone, Lord


Carver, Major William H.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Castlereagh, Viscount
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Shaw. Captain William T. (Forfar)


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
McKeag, William
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Christie, James Archibald
McKie, John Hamilton
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)


Collox, Major William Philip
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Conant, R. J. E.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Cooke, Douglas
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Storey, Samuel


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Magnay, Thomas
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Curry, A. C.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Donner, P. W.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Drewe, Cedrlo
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Satellite, Harold


Duckworth, George A. V.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Titchfield. Major the Marquess of


Duncan. James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & ChisWk)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Eseenhigh, Reginald Clare
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Weymouth, Viscount


Fox, Sir Gilford
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Nunn, William
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Goldie, Noel B.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Wise, Alfred R.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Pearson, William G.
Womersley, Walter James


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'.W.)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Petherick, M.



Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n.Bllston)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Major George Davies.


Hanley, Dennis A.
Ramsay. T. B. W. (Western Isles)



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen


Banfield, John William
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Price, Gabriel


Sevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hicks, Ernest George
Tinker, John Joseph


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Cape, Thomas
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Logan, David Gilbert



Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES —


Daggar, George
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. Cordon Macdonald and Mr.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Duncan Graham.


Edwards, Charles
Miliner, Major James

Division No. 62.]
AYES.
[12.42 a.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Harris, Sir Percy
Milner, Major James


Banfield, John William
Hicks, Ernest George
Nathan, Major H. L.


Brawn, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Janner, Barnett
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Rea, Walter Russell


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, Rt. Han. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.



Grenfell, David Reel (Glamorgan)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffith, F. Kingiley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Mr. Cordon Macdonald and Mr. Duncan Graham.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Hartley, Dennis A.
Ray, Sir William


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P, G.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Albery, Irving James
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Balniel, Lord
Horsbrugh, Florence
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Robinson, John Roland


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ropnor, Colonel L.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Bilndell, James
Ker, J. Campbell
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col, Charles (Montrose)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Salmon, sir Isidore


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Salt, Edward W.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Levy, Thomas
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Liddall, Walter S.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stowart


Burghley, Lord
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Savery, Samuel Servington


Burnett, John George
Liewellin, Major John J.
Scone, Lord


Butt, Sir Alferd
Loder, Captain J. de Vers
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
MacAndrcw, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forlar)


Carver, Major William H.
McKie, John Hamilton
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Castlereagh, Viscount
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrowln-F.)


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leotric
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Christie, James Archibald
Magnay, Thomas
Storey, Samuel


Conant, R. J E.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Cooke, Douglas
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Copeland, Ida
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Milts, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Drewe, Cedric
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigk)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Nunn, William
Wells, Sydney Richard


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Weymouth, Viscount


Fox, Sir Gifford
Palmer, Francis Noel
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Pearson, William G.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Wise, Alfred R.


Goldie, Noel B.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bllston)
Womersley, Walter James


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Pickford, Hon. -Mary Ada
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Guinness, Thomas L. E. S.
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.



Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Rankin, Retail
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Lambert Ward


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ratcliffe, Arthur
and Major George Davies.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 64.]

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Resolved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending section one of that Act to the borough of Acton, which was presented on the 15th day of February, 1933, be approved.

Resolved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending
section one of that Act to the urban district of Penge, which was presented on the 15th day of February, 1933, be approved.—[Mr. Hacking.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Nine Minutes before One o'Clock.